Hak-Lae Kim | 21 Apr 14:07 2009

[foaf-dev] CFP: SSLD 2009

*********************************************************************
      We apologize if you receive multiple copies of this call
*********************************************************************

Call For Papers
The 2009 International Workshop on Social Semantics for Linked Data on
the Web (SSLD2009),
Milan, Italy 15 September 2009

http://semanticweb.org/wiki/SSLD2009

------------
Motivations
------------

The Web is considered as the most important information space in our
modern society. Human beings have been trying to reflect their
interests and life styles on the Web, but the participation in
contributing social content has to date been limited. Web 2.0 plays an
important role in facilitating the participation by providing an
architectural platform to enable linking data in various formats from
various sources. However, the further the data on a system is linked,
the more difficult it becomes to interlink data across heterogeneous
sources. This poses critical problems with connecting data across
different systems.

Social Semantics are believed to lend a hand with overcoming this
situation. In general, the term Social Semantics refers to a
combination of social and semantic technologies. Social Semantic
technologies provide solutions towards bridging the gap between the
(Continue reading)

Alexandre Passant | 22 Apr 18:07 2009

[foaf-dev] Trust and Privacy on the Social and Semantic Web - Call for DEMOs

(Apologies for multiple posts)

============================================================
                  LAST CALL FOR *DEMOS*
=============================================================

              Demo and Application Session
                        at the
             1st International Workshop on
    Trust and Privacy on the Social and Semantic Web
                      (SPOT 2009)
              http://spot2009.semanticweb.org

                  in conjunction with
    The 6th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC2009)

                   Heraklion, Greece
                    June 1st, 2009
=============================================================

The workshop for Trust and Privacy on the Social and
Semantic Web (SPOT2009) will be a forum that brings
together, among others, researchers and developers from the
field of Semantic Web, the Social Web, and trust and privacy
enforcement.

We already accepted 9 high quality research papers. In order
to foster the interactive nature of the workshop we invite
researchers and developers to submit a 2 page demo
description and present and discuss their demo application
(Continue reading)

Danny Ayers | 23 Apr 10:37 2009
Picon

[foaf-dev] foaf:topic and dcterms:subject

I was looking for a 'topic' term and landed on dcterms:subject [1]
first, but then yesterday chatting with Leigh he mentioned foaf:topic
[2]...

I'm guessing the old DC Elements dc:subject would often be used with
literal object, but the DC Terms definition explicitly suggests a
non-literal object. So unless I'm missing something, these properties
have very similar semantics (only real difference being foaf:topic
rdfs:range foaf:Document).

foaf:topic is presumably already too well deployed to deprecate, so to
get some kind of alignment might it make sense to make foaf:topic
rdfs:subPropertyOf dcterms:subject ?

(dcterms:subject rdfs:subPropertyOf dcelements:subject which might
mess up a few inferences if a literal object is used)

Maybe for max connectivity in published data it would be best to
include both properties (same ?s & ?o)..?

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Danny.

[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-subject
[2] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_topic

--

-- 
http://danny.ayers.name
(Continue reading)

Dan Brickley | 23 Apr 12:03 2009

Re: [foaf-dev] foaf:topic and dcterms:subject

On 23/4/09 10:37, Danny Ayers wrote:
> I was looking for a 'topic' term and landed on dcterms:subject [1]
> first, but then yesterday chatting with Leigh he mentioned foaf:topic
> [2]...
>
> I'm guessing the old DC Elements dc:subject would often be used with
> literal object, but the DC Terms definition explicitly suggests a
> non-literal object. So unless I'm missing something, these properties
> have very similar semantics (only real difference being foaf:topic
> rdfs:range foaf:Document).

http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_topic

"The foaf:topic property relates a document to a thing that the document 
is about."

You mean "domain" I think.

> foaf:topic is presumably already too well deployed to deprecate, so to
> get some kind of alignment might it make sense to make foaf:topic
> rdfs:subPropertyOf dcterms:subject ?
>
> (dcterms:subject rdfs:subPropertyOf dcelements:subject which might
> mess up a few inferences if a literal object is used)
>
> Maybe for max connectivity in published data it would be best to
> include both properties (same ?s&  ?o)..?
>
> Thoughts?

(Continue reading)

KANZAKI Masahide | 23 Apr 12:04 2009
Picon

Re: [foaf-dev] foaf:topic and dcterms:subject

Hi,

IMHO, I think foaf:topic and dcterms:subject have a bit (arguably)
different semantics. Danbri's chart [1] might provide some idea about
this.

I guess both terms have somewhat vague definition, probably due to
varied usage history, and could be used interchangeably in some cases.
But, umm, doubt subProperty relation between them.

cheers,

[1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/3282565132/

2009/4/23 Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@...>:
> foaf:topic is presumably already too well deployed to deprecate, so to
> get some kind of alignment might it make sense to make foaf:topic
> rdfs:subPropertyOf dcterms:subject ?

--

-- 
 <at> prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig#> . <> :from [:name
"KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "mkanzaki@..."].
Dan Brickley | 23 Apr 12:18 2009

Re: [foaf-dev] foaf:topic and dcterms:subject

On 23/4/09 10:37, Danny Ayers wrote:
> I was looking for a 'topic' term and landed on dcterms:subject [1]
> first, but then yesterday chatting with Leigh he mentioned foaf:topic
> [2]...
>
> I'm guessing the old DC Elements dc:subject would often be used with
> literal object, but the DC Terms definition explicitly suggests a
> non-literal object. So unless I'm missing something, these properties
> have very similar semantics (only real difference being foaf:topic
> rdfs:range foaf:Document).
>
> foaf:topic is presumably already too well deployed to deprecate, so to
> get some kind of alignment might it make sense to make foaf:topic
> rdfs:subPropertyOf dcterms:subject ?
>
> (dcterms:subject rdfs:subPropertyOf dcelements:subject which might
> mess up a few inferences if a literal object is used)
>
> Maybe for max connectivity in published data it would be best to
> include both properties (same ?s&  ?o)..?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-subject
> [2] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_topic
>
(Continue reading)

Dan Brickley | 23 Apr 12:25 2009

[foaf-dev] [Fwd: [FoRK] The Social Pulse of Human Connectivity On A Planetary Scale]


Rather interesting! Assuming MSN users are representative...

Dan

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [FoRK] The Social Pulse of Human Connectivity On A Planetary Scale
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:41:59 +0200
From: Eugen Leitl <eugen <at> leitl.org>
Reply-To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork <at> xent.com>
To: tt <at> postbiota.org, forkit! <fork <at> xent.com>, info <at> postbiota.org

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/are-we-really-s.html

The Social Pulse of Human Connectivity On A Planetary Scale

Microsoft has studied a total of 30 billion instant messages sent by 
over 250
million people in June of 2006, and determined that we are in fact, all
linked by only 6.6 degrees of separation.

"We've been able to put our finger on the social pulse of human connectivity
- on a planetary scale - and we've confirmed that it's indeed a small 
world."
Microsoft researcher Eric Horvitz told AFP on Monday. "Over the next few
decades, new kinds of computing applications, from smart networks to
automated translation systems, will help make the world even smaller, with
closer social connections and deeper understanding among people."

Due to the popularity of Microsoft Messenger, Horvitz and colleague Jure
(Continue reading)

Simon Reinhardt | 23 Apr 14:12 2009
Picon

Re: [foaf-dev] foaf:topic and dcterms:subject

Danny Ayers wrote:
> I was looking for a 'topic' term and landed on dcterms:subject [1]
> first, but then yesterday chatting with Leigh he mentioned foaf:topic
> [2]...
> 
> I'm guessing the old DC Elements dc:subject would often be used with
> literal object, but the DC Terms definition explicitly suggests a
> non-literal object. So unless I'm missing something, these properties
> have very similar semantics (only real difference being foaf:topic
> rdfs:range foaf:Document).
> 
> foaf:topic is presumably already too well deployed to deprecate, so to
> get some kind of alignment might it make sense to make foaf:topic
> rdfs:subPropertyOf dcterms:subject ?

There's also sioc:topic [1] which is indeed declared as a sub-property of dcterms:subject.

Regards,
  Simon

[1] http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/#term_topic
Simon Reinhardt | 23 Apr 14:18 2009
Picon

Re: [foaf-dev] [Fwd: [FoRK] The Social Pulse of Human Connectivity On A Planetary Scale]

Dan Brickley wrote:
> Rather interesting! Assuming MSN users are representative...

I think there are local preferences over which IM network to use. In Germany ICQ had always been the most
widespread one but MSN has caught up among the younger ones (different generations of friends). Nowadays
it's not instant messengers anymore but social networks I assume. Unfortunately I could never find any
statistics that compared usage in different countries. But I would say MSN's not *that* representative. :-)

Regards,
  Simon
Danny Ayers | 23 Apr 14:37 2009
Picon

Re: [foaf-dev] foaf:topic and dcterms:subject

2009/4/23 Dan Brickley <danbri@...>:

> You mean "domain" I think.

Indeed.

> They're a little different. DC's notion of subject is a relationship between
> a document(-like-object) and a subject code (think SKOS). FOAF's topic
> construct is a relationship between a document and the thing itself, ie. the
> thing the subject code itself represents. A specific restriction on
> foaf:topic is where the thing is the *primary* topic of the document, hence
> foaf:primaryTopic. So foaf:topic is useful even just as a primitive for
> defining foaf:primaryTopic, which allows us to use (some) documents as an
> indirect identification strategy for the things they describe.

Ok, so would I be right with this:

<docAboutSomeDogs> foaf:topic <#Basil>
<docAboutSomeDogs> dct:subject <dogs/B/Basil>
<docAboutSomeDogs> foaf:topic <#Sasha>
<docAboutSomeDogs> dct:subject <dogs/S/Sasha>
...

where

#Basil is his WebID
and
<dogs/B/Basil> a skos:Concept

(and will 303 to a doc about Basil)
(Continue reading)


Gmane