[Wikidata-l] Data model (RDF)

[JFC Morfin]

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
> > semantic web?
>
>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
>complexity anyway.

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.

Oh! yes!
We are not talking of wikilogica yet :-)

>I can recommend the "Linked Data Patterns" book by Dodds and Davis:
>http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/

Thank you. I have printed it. WIll try to read it at least in part this WE.
jfc