Sunday, November 11, 2007

When is a project alive

A month ago I blogged about dbpedia. Dbpedia is very much alive. I have had a look at it and like what they do. I subscribed to their mailing list and again, dbpedia is very much an active project. As always there are things I do not like; their ideas on copyright and licenses are defensive and as a consequence overly restrictive. It prevents cooperation in stead of fostering cooperation.

Today, an anonymous person replied to this blog entry. The suggestion is made to cooperate with the SWAD Europe group. They have a website, a blog but it all stopped in 2004. So I am wondering about all these projects, all this effort that just stops. Projects that may be valuable and given that people promote it in 2007, may still be alive. For me there is no way of knowing.

I have an idea how I would use semantic data in OmegaWiki. What I am not so sure about is how semantic web applications would use OmegaWiki data. In essence OmegaWiki is multi-lingual and exporting it in anything but a machine readable version only, would strip what I think is valuable in OmegaWiki.

Collaborating with for instance a SWAD Europe group makes sense. People can suggest cooperation, it should however be a two way street. Just pointing that there are others does not help me much.

Thanks,
      GerardM

4 comments:

MovGP0 said...

Extracting semantic information out of omegawiki is not that complex as you might think, because the data is highly structured.

As you may know I know semantic technologies very good and also have my eye on the Semantic MediaWiki.

The first you need is an ontology. That means something that describes basic thinks like word, language, sentence, and the like.

With this you can make statements about an expression. If I get some time I could write some examples how to make such statements properly. Anyway: a layout of the omegawiki database layout may be helpful.

MovGP0 said...

forget about the DB layout - I've found it.

MovGP0 said...

Here is a draft in Notation3. The ontology is not worked out yet, but I think it gives the impression how it might look like.

Anonymous said...

Here's how the same example might look like in the SWAD/SKOS ontology:

@prefix xml: <http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace > .

@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .

@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .

<http://www.example.com/concepts#adventure_758825> rdf:type skos:Concept ;
skos:definition "An exciting or very unusual experience."@en ;
skos:definition "Een opwindende of zeer ongewone ervaring."@nl ;
skos:prefLabel "adventure"@en ;
skos:prefLabel "belevenis"@nl .

More complex examples are possible, see also http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/