-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
No clear entry point #6
Comments
"I propose that we make a W3C community-maintained website for this |
Some comments from Henry Story: "For questions and answers that can have an answer I would like for the moment to "We need to suggest a few other tags perhaps that would be of use. It would be good "For questions that are open, this mailing list would be good, or a forum that is good "There should be a section on academic papers specializing in this, and conferences, |
This is something I've been interested in developing, but I would like to note one difference between React and RDF, in that React does one thing: It is a library that generates a document from data in an event loop; whereas RDF is a data model targeted at many different use cases. My idea of what this looks like is more along the lines of a recipe book: "How do I embed navigation information with RDF?" "How do I query a list of items with RDF?" and so on. |
@ontoconsult, wow! |
Melvin Carvalho wrote:
|
Nice! For a long time Mike Bergman has also maintained a database of I am still wondering if there is enough interest to create a If anyone is willing to help, please say so by leaving a comment here. |
I would be willing to check activities for my existing listing and to possibly update them. However, I do not think I want to continue in a maintainer mode. |
Just a word of warning... many years ago (in my previous life:-) I have set up a community wiki site at: https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Main_Page I had two goals when doing that:
It was/is a Semantic Wiki, which had the advantage of providing all kinds of tools to cross-reference things, categorize entries, and even give the possibility to generate linked data from the content. Since I am not in charge anymore, I do not follow the evolution. It is still operational (I see some modifications from earlier this year on, say, Jena), but I do not think it was an overall success. It would be interesting to analyze why such sites (this was not the only one, that is for sure) did not really succeed in general; this may help us to avoid pitfalls for any new endeavor. Some of my own recollections on this wiki's problems:
I hope this helps... |
I think this would be a good place to share what I'm working on: a framework for websites and especially wikis. It is like Semantic Mediawiki in some of its capabilities; it collects RDF information from the RDFa pages of the website (and possibly other sources), and can build tables of RDFa documents by filling in placeholders/variables where RDFa properties would be expected. For example, this table of HTTP headers is built using a query: https://fullstack.wiki/http/http-headers Here is the source code for that table: https://github.com/awwright/fullstackwiki/blob/ebab383f8c3308277982eea8e09e85bab5e6ce13/web/http/http-headers.html Note how the generated document is an RDFa document that contains all the RDF statements used to build the document: the rendered document is partially isomorphic with the data store! Anyone can check out the source code and build the website themselves: https://github.com/awwright/fullstackwiki. Several other repositories host libraries that support this, you can check the dependency list and my repository list for some of them. I think this website would be a good fit for this task. I intend for it to be device-, developer-, and platform- neutral, and focus on best practices for accessible Web applications. I'd like to add content to this site focusing on Semantic Web technology. To do this, we need to figure out exactly who the audience is, then come up with a structure of how it should look. First, I ask about audience because I don't want to cannibalize the audience of the specifications themselves: Implementors should refer to the specifications, and not secondhand descriptions. However, my view is that specifications define should stick to normative requirements, and then put non-normative guidelines and logical conclusions in a website or wiki. We take this approach with JSON Schema; we publish Internet-Drafts for normative behavior, and describe design motivations and provide examples on the official website. Second is the outline. We need to describe to developers why they should adopt RDF at all, and what problems it solves. Often RDF solves purely hypothetical problems instead of actual technical ones faced by a company. So, I'd guess the outline list the problems that RDF aims to solve, then a technology or solution used to solve it. I take this approach in a document I wrote describing how OAuth works: https://fullstack.wiki/oauth/index — note how it describes a single, narrow problem (e.g. how can a machine authenticate with a username/password), then presents the solution (use Authorization: Basic), then introduces another problem and its solution (passwords are expensive/insecure, use session tokens), and so on, until the entirety of OAuth (plus its foundations) are described. But I'm having trouble coming up with a coherent, similar list of "problems that RDF solves". Things like 5-Star Linked Data describe very nicely how RDF is good for the Web, but why does it help e.g. me or my organization? I think we need to describe some of the tooling available, and develop more & better tooling (see the other issues on this repository), in order to be able to justify how publishing RDF can solve important problems for the publisher. I think I have a vague idea of what an outline might look like, but I'd like to see if other people have any good ideas before I spoil your minds with my own. Any ideas? |
Collecting some comments from the mailing list: From https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Mar/0068.html
From https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Mar/0069.html
From https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Mar/0070.html
From https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Mar/0071.html
From https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Mar/0073.html
From https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Mar/0076.html
|
The Ubuntu and Debian communities are much bigger than the RDF communities, but I found information about their governance and decision-making processes. Ubuntu governance: Debian constitution: |
MDN Web Docs (formerly MDN) is an example of outstanding community-fueled online documentation, though they do also have a paid staff. It is run by Mozilla, but I have not yet figured out exactly how it fits into the Mozilla Foundation (a non-profit) and the Mozilla Corporation, which is a commercial company wholly owned by the Mozilla Foundation. MDN Web Docs seems to be treated as a Mozilla module, since it is listed on this page. I see also:
Does anyone know more about how the MDN Web Docs organization works, and how decisions are made? |
@ontoconsult was your core/user-defined/individuals figure above present on the http://www.infowebml.ws website up until recently? I remember seeing some really useful cheat-sheets there in the past but I can't seem to reach them now. answering my own question: it seems like the original can only be found in internet archives now: https://web.archive.org/web/20071011172027/http://www.infowebml.ws/website/graphical-representations.htm |
Hi Mark,
I can only guess, therefore I attach as much as e-mail is willing to carry forward. It’s old stuff.
Please let me know whether or not that cheat-sheet was amongst them. If not, please describe it.
Regards,
Hans
15926.org <http://15926.org/>
…________________________________________
From: Mark A. Miller <notifications@github.com>
Sent: dinsdag 20 augustus 2019 19:40
To: w3c/EasierRDF <EasierRDF@noreply.github.com>
Cc: ontoconsult <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>; Mention <mention@noreply.github.com>
Subject: Re: [w3c/EasierRDF] No clear entry point (#6)
@ontoconsult <https://github.com/ontoconsult> was your core/user-defined/individuals figure above present on the http://www.infowebml.ws website up until recently? I remember seeing some really useful cheat-sheets there int eh past but I can't seem to reach them now.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABHVQVNVIUSLYISKTGEOMXLQFQT7RA5CNFSM4GI65EBKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD4XC2HA#issuecomment-523119900> , or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABHVQVNCRJ7I4FG6GRDZMRTQFQT7RANCNFSM4GI65EBA> .
---
Deze e-mail is gecontroleerd op virussen door AVG.
http://www.avg.com
|
I find it a bit bewildering reading all the comments made here and not finding a single mention user interface design. The reason the React website is so pleasant and welcoming is not primarily because its technology and domain of application is so much simpler than that of RDF, but because it's a beautifully crafted design created by a highly skilled designer, written by a technical writer and implemented by a competent front-end developer. Sorry to be frank, but if one or more designers are not at the forefront of whatever content you are going to fill this website with, it is going to fail just like all the other RDF related websites that are in current existence. |
@martinthomson, can you perhaps please point us in the right direction? |
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/MDN/Contribute/Guidelines/Does_this_belong_on_MDN provides some guidance here. Apparently there is a MDN Product Advisory Board, but I don't have a lot of info. |
"Compare "How do I write React" Google results with "How do I write RDF"
Google results. React's first hit[3] is served by its authority (reactjs.org). It links
to a description that is compelling, welcoming, and relatively easily
scanned. . . . RDF's first hit is hosted by w3schools.com[4] and feels scanty"
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2018Nov/0229.html
IDEA: Canonical documentation
"There is a canonical documentation and jumping in point for communities like React, and the documentation is very good, particularly for beginners. Does rdf have any of these things? Where is the starting point for RDF -- I don't even know -- W3C specs -- that is not the same ease of documentation for a self taught developer as it would be for an academic."
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2018Nov/0136.html
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: