At 11:17 31/03/2012, Jakob Voss wrote:
JFC Morfin wrote:
2. Since we have a W3C expert: what is the best
document/book to get
a comprehensive and clear (not too massive) documentation on the
You surely don't want to know all about semantic web - especially the
Ontology stuff with OWL dialects and entailment regimes is far too
academic and won't be part of wikidata because of computational
Thx. What I meant by "comprehensive" is that it covers all the areas,
in a state of the art manner, at a useful level to understand, take
or repell decisions.
The problem we face today with SDOs' documentation is that they come
as separate "bills" (standard, RFCs, etc.) and not as part of
maintained structured "codes" (lawyers do that better). The first
target for a wikidata project could be to ask W3C, IETF, ISO, IEEE,
JTC1, etc. to reduce their "bills" into "sections" that could be
rebuilt as "codes" through framework interlinks.
* each new "bill" would result into sections updates, that in turn
would update and partly reshape the code structure.
* anyone could obtain access to a general current view of their areas
and appropriately dig into it.
This is not feasible in the general and multicultural concepts areas.
But this would only be English documentation. It would help everyone
and provide experience and momentum for the wikidata project.
In short, you should be *very sceptical* and
cautious every time you stumple upon anything that requires inference
rules. Even trivial inference rules such as those based on owl:sameAs
and rdf:type can be problematic in practice! The less inference you
assume, the better.
We are not talking of wikilogica yet :-)
I can recommend the "Linked Data Patterns"
book by Dodds and Davis:
Thank you. I have printed it. WIll try to read it at least in part this WE.