 |
 |
yo, i get it On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I don't know what your definition of "serialization" is, but I don't know > of any where "data model" and "formatted output of a data model" are > synonymous. > > RDF is a data model *not* a serialization. > > -Ross. > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Ethan Gruber <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > I see that serialization has a different definition in computer science > > than I thought it did. > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> > > wrote: > > > > > That's still not a "serialization". It's just a similar data model. > > > Pretty huge difference. > > > > > > -Ross. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Ethan Gruber <[log in to unmask]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I'm not sure that I agree that RDF is not a serialization. It really > > > > depends on the context of the system and intended use of the linked > > data. > > > > For example, TEI is designed with a specific purpose which cannot be > > > > replicated in RDF (at least, not very easily at all), but deriving > RDF > > > from > > > > highly-linked TEI to put into an endpoint can open doors to queries > > which > > > > are otherwise impossible to make on the data. This certainly > requires > > > some > > > > rethinking of the way texts interact. But perhaps it may be best to > > say > > > > that RDF *can* (but not necessarily) be a derivation, rather than > > > > serialization, of some larger, more complex canonical data model. > > > > > > > > Ethan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Aaron Rubinstein < > > > > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here, Karen. I would just > > add, > > > or > > > > > maybe reassure, that this does not necessarily require rethinking > > your > > > > > existing metadata but how to translate that existing metadata into > a > > > > linked > > > > > data environment. Though this might seem like a pain, in many cases > > it > > > > will > > > > > actually inspire you to go back and improve/increase the value of > > that > > > > > existing metadata. > > > > > > > > > > This is definitely looking awesome, Eric! > > > > > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 19, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Eric, I think this skips a step - which is the design step in > which > > > you > > > > > create a domain model that uses linked data as its basis. RDF is > not > > a > > > > > serialization; it actually may require you to re-think the basic > > > > structure > > > > > of your metadata. The reason for that is that it provides > > capabilities > > > > that > > > > > record-based data models do not. Rather than starting with current > > > > > metadata, you need to take a step back and ask: what does my > > > information > > > > > world look like as linked data? > > > > > > > > > > > > I repeat: RDF is NOT A SERIALIZATION. > > > > > > > > > > > > kc > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/19/13 5:04 AM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote: > > > > > >> I believe participating in the Semantic Web and providing > content > > > via > > > > > the principles of linked data is not "rocket surgery", especially > for > > > > > cultural heritage institutions -- libraries, archives, and museums. > > > Here > > > > is > > > > > a simple recipe for their participation: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 1. use existing metadata standards (MARC, EAD, etc.) to > describe > > > > > >> collections > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 2. use any number of existing tools to convert the metadata to > > > > > >> HTML, and save the HTML on a Web server > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 3. use any number of existing tools to convert the metadata to > > > > > >> RDF/XML (or some other "serialization" of RDF), and save > the > > > > > >> RDF/XML on a Web server > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 4. rest, congratulate yourself, and share your experience with > > > > > >> others in your domain > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 5. after the first time though, go back to Step #1, but this > > time > > > > > >> work with other people inside your domain making sure you > use > > > as > > > > > >> many of the same URIs as possible > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 6. after the second time through, go back to Step #1, but this > > > > > >> time supplement access to your linked data with a triple > > store, > > > > > >> thus supporting search > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 7. after the third time through, go back to Step #1, but this > > > > > >> time use any number of existing tools to expose the content > > in > > > > > >> your other information systems (relational databases, > OAI-PMH > > > > > >> data repositories, etc.) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 8. for dessert, cogitate ways to exploit the linked data in > your > > > > > >> domain to discover new and additional relationships between > > > URIs, > > > > > >> and thus make the Semantic Web more of a reality > > > > > >> > > > > > >> What do you think? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I am in the process of writing a guidebook on the topic of > linked > > > data > > > > > and archives. In the guidebook I will elaborate on this recipe and > > > > provide > > > > > instructions for its implementation. [1] > > > > > >> > > > > > >> [1] guidebook - http://sites.tufts.edu/liam/ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> Eric Lease Morgan > > > > > >> University of Notre Dame > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Karen Coyle > > > > > > [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net > > > > > > m: 1-510-435-8234 > > > > > > skype: kcoylenet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >