OpenLink Community Blog

Here is a tabulated "compare and contrast" of Web usage patterns 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.

Naturally, I am not expecting everyone to agree with me. I am simply making my contribution to what will remain facinating discourse for a long time to come :-)

Related

• Web 3.0 The Best Official Definition Imaginable -- Nova Spivack's

The first salvo of what we've been hinting about re. server side faceted browsing over Unlimited Data within configurable Interactive Time-frames is now available for experimentation at: http://b3s.openlinksw.com/fct/facet.vsp.

Simple example / demo:

Enter search pattern: Microsoft

You will get the usual result from a full text pattern search i.e., hits and text excerpts with matching patterns in boldface. This first step is akin to throwing your net out to sea while fishing.

Now you have your catch, what next? Basically, this is where traditional text search value ends since regex or xpath/xquery offer little when the structure of literal text is the key to filtering or categorization based analysis of real-world entities. Naturally, this is where the value of structured querying of linked data starts, as you seek to use entity descriptions (combination of attribute and relationship properties) to "Find relevant things".

Continuing with the demo.

Click on "Properties" link within the Navigation section of the browser page which results in a distillation and aggregation of the properties of the entities associated with the search results. Then use the "Next" link to page through the properties until to find the properties that best match what you seek. Note, this particular step is akin to using the properties of the catch (using fishing analogy) for query filtering, with each subsequent property link click narrowing your selection further.

Using property based filtering is just one perspective on the data corpus associated with the text search pattern; thus, you can alter perspectives by clicking on the "Class" link so that you can filter you search results by entity type. Of course, in a number of scenarios you would use a combination of entity types and entity properties filters to locate the entities of interest to you.

A Few Notes about this demo instance of Virtuoso:

• Lookup Data Size (Local Linked Data Corpus): 2 Billion+ Triples (entity-attribute-value tuples)
• This is a *temporary* teaser / precursor to the LOD (Linking Open Data Cloud) variant of our Linked Data driven "Search" & "Find" service; we decided to implement this functionality prior to commissioning a larger and more up to date instance based on the entire LOD Cloud
• The browser is simply using a Virtuoso PL function that also exists in Web Service form for loose binding by 3rd parties that have a UI orientation and focus (our UI is deliberately bare boned).
• The properties and entity types (classes) links expose formal definitions and dictionary provenance information materialized in an HTML page (of course your browser or any other HTTP user agent can negotiation alternative representations of this descriptive information)
• UMBEL based inference rules are enabled, giving you a live and simple demonstration of the virtues of Linked Data Dictionaries for example: click on the description link of any property or class from the foaf (friend-of-a-friend vocabulary), sioc (semantically-interlinked-online-communities ontology), mo (music ontology), bibo (bibliographic data ontology) namespaces to see how the data between these lower level vocabularies or ontologies are meshed with OpenCyc's upper level ontology.

Related

• Faceted Search: Unlimited Data in Interactive Time
• Virtuoso Anytime: No Query Is Too Complex

What is it?

A pre-installed edition of Virtuoso for Amazon's EC2 Cloud platform.

What does it offer?

1. Low cost entry point to a game-changing Web 3.0+ (and beyond) platform that combines SQL, RDF, XML, and Web Services functionality
2. Flexible variable cost model (courtesy of EC2 DevPay) tightly bound to revenue generated by your services
3. Delivers federated and/or centralized model flexibility for you SaaS based solutions
4. Simple entry point for developing and deploying sophisticated database driven applications (SQL or RDF Linked Data Web oriented)
5. Complete framework for exploiting OpenID, OAuth (including Role enhancements) that simplifies exploitation of these vital Identity and Data Access technologies
6. Easily implement RDF Linked Data based Mail, Blogging, Wikis, Bookmarks, Calendaring, Discussion Forums, Tagging, Social-Networking as Data Space (data containers) features of your application or service offering
7. Instant alleviation of challenges (e.g. service costs and agility) associated with Data Portability and Open Data Access across Web 2.0 data silos
8. LDAP integration for Intranet / Extranet style applications.

From the DBMS engine perspective it provides you with one or more pre-configured instances of Virtuoso that enable immediate exploitation of the following services:

1. RDF Database (a Quad Store with SPARQL & SPARUL Language & Protocol support)
2. SQL Database (with ODBC, JDBC, OLE-DB, ADO.NET, and XMLA driver access)
3. XML Database (XML Schema, XQuery/Xpath, XSLT, Full Text Indexing)
4. Full Text Indexing.

From a Middleware perspective it provides:

1. RDF Views (Wrappers / Semantic Covers) over SQL, XML, and other data sources accessible via SOAP or REST style Web Services
2. Sponger Service for converting non RDF information resources into RDF Linked Data "on the fly" via a large collection of pre-installed RDFizer Cartridges.

From the Web Server Platform perspective it provides an alternative to LAMP stack components such as MySQL and Apace by offering

1. HTTP Web Server
2. WebDAV Server
3. Web Application Server (includes PHP runtime hosting)
4. SOAP or REST style Web Services Deployment
5. RDF Linked Data Deployment
6. SPARQL (SPARQL Query Language) and SPARUL (SPARQL Update Language) endpoints
7. Virtuoso Hosted PHP packages for MediaWiki, Drupal, Wordpress, and phpBB3 (just install the relevant Virtuoso Distro. Package).

From the general System Administrator's perspective it provides:

1. Online Backups (Backup Set dispatched to S3 buckets, FTP, or HTTP/WebDAV server locations)
2. Synchronized Incremental Backups to Backup Set locations
3. Backup Restore from Backup Set location (without exiting to EC2 shell).

Higher level user oriented offerings include:

1. OpenLink Data Explorer front-end for exploring the burgeoning Linked Data Web
2. Ajax based SPARQL Query Builder (iSPARQL) that enables SPARQL Query construction by Example
3. Ajax based SQL Query Builder (QBE) that enables SQL Query construction by Example.

For Web 2.0 / 3.0 users, developers, and entrepreneurs it offers it includes Distributed Collaboration Tools & Social Media realm functionality courtesy of ODS that includes:

1. Point of presence on the Linked Data Web that meshes your Identity and your Data via URIs
2. System generated Social Network Profile & Contact Data via FOAF?
3. System generated SIOC (Semantically Interconnected Online Community) Data Space (that includes a Social Graph) exposing all your Web data in RDF Linked Data form
4. System generated OpenID and automatic integration with FOAF
5. Transparent Data Integration across Facebook, Digg, LinkedIn, FriendFeed, Twitter, and any other Web 2.0 data space equipped with RSS / Atom support and/or REST style Web Services
6. In-built support for SyncML which enables data synchronization with Mobile Phones.

How Do I Get Going with It?

• Standard Installation Guide
• Personal or Service Specific DBpedia Installation Guide

Yrjänä Rankka and I attended ESWC2008 on behalf of OpenLink.

We were invited at the last minute to give a Linked Open Data talk at Paolo Bouquet's Identity and Reference workshop. We also had a demo of SPARQL BI (PPT); other formats coming soon), our business intelligence extensions to SPARQL as well as joining between relational data mapped to RDF and native RDF data. i was also speaking at the social networks panel chaired by Harry Halpin.

I have gathered a few impressions that I will share in the next few posts (1 - RDF Mapping, 2 - DARQ, 3 - voiD, 4 - Paradigmata). Caveat: This is not meant to be complete or impartial press coverage of the event but rather some quick comments on issues of personal/OpenLink interest. The fact that I do not mention something does not mean that it is unimportant.

The voiD Graph

Linked Open Data was well represented, with Chris Bizer, Tom Heath, ourselves and many others. The great advance for LOD this time around is voiD, the Vocabulary of Interlinked Datasets, a means to describe what in fact is inside the LOD cloud, how to join it with what and so forth. Big time important if there is to be a web of federatable data sources, feeding directly into what we have been saying for a while about SPARQL end-point self-description and discovery. There is reasonable hope of having something by the date of Linked Data Planet in a couple of weeks.

Federating

Bastian Quilitz gave a talk about his DARQ, a federated version of Jena's ARQ.

Something like DARQ's optimization statistics should make their way into the SPARQL protocol as well as the voiD data set description.

We really need federation but more on this in a separate post.

XSPARQL

Axel Polleres et al had a paper about XSPARQL, a merge of XQuery and SPARQL. While visiting DERI a couple of weeks back and again at the conference, we talked about OpenLink implementing the spec. It is evident that the engines must be in the same process and not communicate via the SPARQL protocol for this to be practical. We could do this. We'll have to see when.

Politically, using XQuery to give expressions and XML synthesis to SPARQL would be fitting. These things are needed anyhow, as surely as aggregation and sub-queries but the latter would not so readily come from XQuery. Some rapprochement between RDF and XML folks is desirable anyhow.

Panel: Will the Sem Web Rise to the Challenge of the Social Web?

The social web panel presented the question of whether the sem web was ready for prime time with data portability.

The main thrust was expressed in Harry Halpin's rousing closing words: "Men will fight in a battle and lose a battle for a cause they believe in. Even if the battle is lost, the cause may come back and prevail, this time changed and under a different name. Thus, there may well come to be something like our semantic web, but it may not be the one we have worked all these years to build if we do not rise to the occasion before us right now."

So, how to do this? Dan Brickley asked the audience how many supported, or were aware of, the latest Web 2.0 things, such as OAuth and OpenID. A few were. The general idea was that research (after all, this was a research event) should be more integrated and open to the world at large, not living at the "outdated pace" of a 3 year funding cycle. Stefan Decker of DERI acquiesced in principle. Of course there is impedance mismatch between specialization and interfacing with everything.

I said that triples and vocabularies existed, that OpenLink had ODS (OpenLink Data Spaces, Community LinkedData) for managing one's data-web presence, but that scale would be the next thing. Rather large scale even, with 100 gigatriples (Gtriples) reached before one even noticed. It takes a lot of PCs to host this, maybe $400K worth at today's prices, without replication. Count 16G ram and a few cores per Gtriple so that one is not waiting for disk all the time.

The tricks that Web 2.0 silos do with app-specific data structures and app-specific partitioning do not really work for RDF without compromising the whole point of smooth schema evolution and tolerance of ragged data.

So, simple vocabularies, minimal inference, minimal blank nodes. Besides, note that the inference will have to be done at run time, not forward-chained at load time, if only because users will not agree on what sameAs and other declarations they want for their queries. Not to mention spam or malicious sameAs declarations!

As always, there was the question of business models for the open data web and for semantic technologies in general. As we see it, information overload is the factor driving the demand. Better contextuality will justify semantic technologies. Due to the large volumes and complex processing, a data-as-service model will arise. The data may be open, but its query infrastructure, cleaning, and keeping up-to-date, can be monetized as services.

Identity and Reference

For the identity and reference workshop, the ultimate question is metaphysical and has no single universal answer, even though people, ever since the dawn of time and earlier, have occupied themselves with the issue. Consequently, I started with the Genesis quote where Adam called things by nominibus suis, off-hand implying that things would have some intrinsic ontologically-due names. This would be among the older references to the question, at least in widely known sources.

For present purposes, the consensus seemed to be that what would be considered the same as something else depended entirely on the application. What was similar enough to warrant a sameAs for cooking purposes might not warrant a sameAs for chemistry. In fact, complete and exact sameness for URIs would be very rare. So, instead of making generic weak similarity assertions like similarTo or seeAlso, one would choose a set of strong sameAs assertions and have these in effect for query answering if they were appropriate to the granularity demanded by the application.

Therefore sameAs is our permanent companion, and there will in time be malicious and spam sameAs. So, nothing much should be materialized on the basis of sameAs assertions in an open world. For an app-specific warehouse, sameAs can be resolved at load time.

There was naturally some apparent tension between the Occam camp of entity name services and the LOD camp. I would say that the issue is more a perceived polarity than a real one. People will, inevitably, continue giving things names regardless of any centralized authority. Just look at natural language. But having a dictionary that is commonly accepted for established domains of discourse is immensely helpful.

CYC and NLP

The semantic search workshop was interesting, especially CYC's presentation. CYC is, as it were, the grand old man of knowledge representation. Over the long term, I would have support of the CYC inference language inside a database query processor. This would mostly be for repurposing the huge knowledge base for helping in search type queries. If it is for transactions or financial reporting, then queries will be SQL and make little or no use of any sort of inference. If it is for summarization or finding things, the opposite holds. For scaling, the issue is just making correct cardinality guesses for query planning, which is harder when inference is involved. We'll see.

I will also have a closer look at natural language one of these days, quite inevitably, since Zitgist (for example) is into entity disambiguation.

Scale

Garlic gave a talk about their Data Patrol and QDOS. We agree that storing the data for these as triples instead of 1000 or so constantly changing relational tables could well make the difference between next-to-unmanageable and efficiently adaptive.

Garlic probably has the largest triple collection in constant online use to date. We will soon join them with our hosting of the whole LOD cloud and Sindice/Zitgist as triples.

Conclusions

There is a mood to deliver applications. Consequently, scale remains a central, even the principal topic. So for now we make bigger centrally-managed databases. At the next turn around the corner we will have to turn to federation. The point here is that a planetary-scale, centrally-managed, online system can be made when the workload is uniform and anticipatable, but if it is free-form queries and complex analysis, we have a problem. So we move in the direction of federating and charging based on usage whenever the workload is more complex than making simple lookups now and then.

For the Virtuoso roadmap, this changes little. Next we make data sets available on Amazon EC2, as widely promised at ESWC. With big scale also comes rescaling and repartitioning, so this gets additional weight, as does further parallelizing of single user workloads. As it happens, the same medicine helps for both. At Linked Data Planet, we will make more announcements.

In conclusion, update, full text, and basic counting and grouping would seem straightforward at this point. Nesting queries, value subqueries, views, and the like should not be too hard if an agreement is reached on scope rules. Inference and federation will probably need more experimentation but a lot can be had already with very simple fine grained control of backward chaining, if such applies, or with explicit end-point references and explicit join order. These are practical but not pretty enough for committee consensus, would be my guess. Anyway, it will be a few months before anything formal will happen.

Andy Seaborne and Eric Prud'hommeaux, editors of the SPARQL recommendation, convened a SPARQL birds of a feather session at WWW 2008. The administrative outcome was that implementors could now experiment with extensions, hopefully keeping each other current about their efforts and that towards the end of 2008, a new W3C working group might begin formalizing the experiences into a new SPARQL spec.

The session drew a good crowd, including many users and developers. The wishes were largely as expected, with a few new ones added. Many of the wishes already had diverse implementations, however most often without interop. I will below give some comments on the main issues discussed.

In conclusion, update, full text, and basic counting and grouping would seem straightforward at this point. Nesting queries, value subqueries, views, and the like should not be too hard if an agreement is reached on scope rules. Inference and federation will probably need more experimentation but a lot can be had already with very simple fine grained control of backward chaining, if such applies, or with explicit end-point references and explicit join order. These are practical but not pretty enough for committee consensus, would be my guess. Anyway, it will be a few months before anything formal will happen.

For all the one-way feed consumers and aggregators, and readers of the original post, here is a variant equipped hyperlinked phrases as opposed to words. As I stated in the prior post, the post (like most of my posts) was part experiment / dog-fodding of automatic tagging and hyper-linking functionality in OpenLink Data Spaces.

ReadWriteWeb via Alex Iskold's post have delivered another iteration of their "Guide to Semantic Technologies".

If you look at the title of this post (and their article) they seem to be accurately providing a guide to Semantic Technologies, so no qualms there. If on the other hand, this is supposed to he a guide to the "Semantic Web" as prescribed by TimBL then they are completely missing the essence of the whole subject, and demonstrably so I may add, since the entities: "ReadWriteWeb" and "Alex Iskold" are only describable today via the attributes of the documents they publish i.e their respective blogs and hosted blog posts.

Preoccupation with Literal objects as describe above, implies we can only take what "ReadWriteWeb" and "Alex Iskold" say "Literally" (grep, regex, and XPath/Xquery are the only tools for searching deeper in this Literal realm), we have no sense of what makes them tick or where they come from, no history (bar "About Page" blurb), no data connections beyond anchored text (more pointers to opaque data sources) in post and blogrolls. The only connection between this post and them is the my deliberate use of the same literal text in the Title of this post.

TimBL's vision as espoused via the "Semantic Web" vision is about the production, consumption, and sharing of Data Objects via HTTP based Identifiers called URIs/IRIs (Hyperdata Links / Linked Data). It's how we use the Web as a Distributed Database where (as Jim Hendler once stated with immense clarity): I can point to records (entity instances) in your database (aka Data Space) from mine. Which is to say that if we can all point to data entities/objects (not just data entities of type "Document") using these Location, Value, and Structure independent Object Identifiers (courtesy of HTTP) we end up with a much more powerful Web, and one that is closer to the "Federated and Open" nature of the Web.

As I stated in a prior post, if you or your platform of choice aren't producing de-referencable URIs for your data objects, you may be Semantic (this data model predates the Web), but there is no "World Wide Web" in what you are doing.

What are the Benefits of the Semantic Web?

Consumer - "Discovery of relevant things" and be being "Discovered by relevant things" (people, places, events, and other things)

Enterprise - ditto plus the addition of enterprise domain specific things such as market opportunities, product portfolios, human resources, partners, customers, competitors, co-opetitors, acquisition targets, new regulation etc..)

Simple demo:

I am a Kingsley Idehen, a Person who authors this weblog. I also share bookmarks gathered over the years across an array of subjects via my bookmark data space. I also subscribe to a number of RSS/Atom/RDF feeds, which I share via my feeds subscription data space. Of course, all of these data sources have Tags which are collectively exposed via my weblog tag-cloud, feeds subscriptions tag-cloud, and bookmarks tag-cloud data spaces.

As I don't like repeating myself, and I hate wasting my time or the time of others, I simply share my Data Space (a collection of all of my purpose specific data spaces) via the Web so that others (friends, family, employees, partners, customers, project collaborators, competitors, co-opetitors etc.) can can intentionally or serendipitously discover relevant data en route to creating new information (perspectives) that is hopefully exposed others via the Web.

Bottom-line, the Semantic Web is about adding the missing "Open Data Access & Connectivity" feature to the current Document Web (we have to beyond regex, grep, xpath, xquery, full text search, and other literal scrapping approaches). The Linked Data Web of de-referencable data object URIs is the critical foundation layer that makes this feasible.

Remember, It's not about "Applications" it's about Data and actually freeing Data from the "tyranny of Applications". Unfortunately, application inadvertently always create silos (esp. on the Web) since entity data modeling, open data access, and other database technology realm matters, remain of secondary interest to many application developers.

Final comment, RDF facilitates Linked Data on the Web, but all RDF isn't endowed with de-referencable URIs (a major source of confusion and misunderstanding). Thus, you can have RDF Data Source Providers that simply project RDF data silos via Web Services APIs if RDF output emanating from a Web Service doesn't provide out-bound pathways to other data via de-referencable URIs. Of course the same also applies to Widgets that present you with all the things they've discovered without exposing de-referencable URIs for each item.

BTW - my final comments above aren't in anyway incongruent with devising successful business models for the Web. As you may or may not know, OpenLink is not only a major platform provider for the Semantic Web (expressed in our UDA, Virtuoso, OpenLink Data Spaces, and OAT products), we are also actively seeding Semantic Web (tribe: Linked Data of course) startups. For instance, Zitgist, which now has Mike Bergman as it's CEO alongside Frederick Giasson as CTO. Of course, I cannot do Zitgist justice via a footnote in a blog post, so I will expand further in a separate post.

Additional information about this blog post:

1. I didn't spent hours looking for URIs used in my hyperlinks
2. The post is best viewed via an RDF Linked Data aware user agents (OpenLink RDF Browser, Zitgist Data Viewer, DISCO Hyperdata Browser, Tabulator).

ReadWriteWeb via Alex Iskold have delivered another iteration of their "Guide to Semantic Technologies".

If you look at the title of this post (and their article) they seem to be accurately providing a guide to Semantic Technologies, so no qualms there. If on the other hand, this is supposed to he a guide to the "Semantic Web" as prescribed by TimBL then they are completely missing the essence of the whole subject, and demonstrably so I may add, since the entities: "ReadWriteWeb" and "Alex Iskold" are only describable today via the attributes of the documents they publish i.e their respective blogs and hosted blog posts.

Preoccupation with Literal objects as describe above, implies we can only take what "ReadWriteWeb" and "Alex Iskold" say "Literally" (grep, regex, and XPath/Xquery are the only tools for searching deeper in this Literal realm), we have no sense of what makes them tick or where they come from, no history (bar "About Page" blurb), no data connections beyond anchored text (more pointers to opaque data sources) in post and blogrolls. The only connection between this post and them is the my deliberate use of the same literal text in the Title of this post.

TimBL's vision as espoused via the "Semantic Web" vision is about the production, consumption, and sharing of Data Objects via HTTP based Identifiers called URIs/IRIs (Hyperdata Links / Linked Data). It's how we use the Web as a Distributed Database where (as Jim Hendler once stated with immense clarity): I can point to records (entity instances) in your database (aka Data Space) from mine. Which is to say that if we can all point to data entities/objects (not just data entities of type "Document") using these Location, Value, and Structure independent Object Identifiers (courtesy of HTTP) we end up with a much more powerful Web, and one that is closer to the "Federated and Open" nature of the Web.

As I stated in a prior post, if you or your platform of choice aren't producing de-referencable URIs for your data objects, you may be Semantic (this data model predates the Web), but there is no "World Wide Web" in what you are doing.

What are the Benefits of the Semantic Web?

Consumer - "Discovery of relevant things" and be being "Discovered by relevant things" (people, places, events, and other things)

Enterprise - ditto plus the addition of enterprise domain specific things such as market opportunities, product portfolios, human resources, partners, customers, competitors, co-opetitors, acquisition targets, new regulation etc..)

Simple demo:

I am a Kingsley Idehen, a Person who authors this weblog. I also share bookmarks gathered over the years across an array of subjects via my bookmark data space. I also subscribe to a number of RSS/Atom/RDF feeds, which I share via my feeds subscription data space. Of course, all of these data sources have Tags which are collectively exposed via my weblog tag-cloud, feeds subscriptions tag-cloud, and bookmarks tag-cloud data spaces.

As I don't like repeating myself, and I hate wasting my time or the time of others, I simply share my Data Space (a collection of all of my purpose specific data spaces) via the Web so that others (friends, family, employees, partners, customers, project collaborators, competitors, co-opetitors etc.) can can intentionally or serendipitously discover relevant data en route to creating new information (perspectives) that is hopefully exposed others via the Web.

Bottom-line, the Semantic Web is about adding the missing "Open Data Access & Connectivity" feature to the current Document Web (we have to beyond regex, grep, xpath, xquery, full text search, and other literal scrapping approaches). The Linked Data Web of de-referencable data object URIs is the critical foundation layer that makes this feasible.

Remember, It's not about "Applications" it's about Data and actually freeing Data from the "tyranny of Applications". Unfortunately, application inadvertently always create silos (esp. on the Web) since entity data modeling, open data access, and other database technology realm matters, remain of secondary interest to many application developers.

Final comment, RDF facilitates Linked Data on the Web, but all RDF isn't endowed with de-referencable URIs (a major source of confusion and misunderstanding). Thus, you can have RDF Data Source Providers that simply project RDF data silos via Web Services APIs if RDF output emanating from a Web Service doesn't provide out-bound pathways to other data via de-referencable URIs. Of course the same also applies to Widgets that present you with all the things they've discovered without exposing de-referencable URIs for each item.

BTW - my final comments above aren't in anyway incongruent with devising successful business models for the Web. As you may or may not know, OpenLink is not only a major platform provider for the Semantic Web (expressed in our UDA, Virtuoso, OpenLink Data Spaces, and OAT products), we are also actively seeding Semantic Web (tribe: Linked Data of course) startups. For instance, Zitgist, which now has Mike Bergman as it's CEO alongside Frederick Giasson as CTO. Of course, I cannot do Zitgist justice via a footnote in a blog post, so I will expand further in a separate post.

Additional information about this blog post:

1. I didn't spent hours looking for URIs used in my hyperlinks
2. The post is best viewed via an RDF Linked Data aware user agents (OpenLink RDF Browser, Zitgist Data Viewer, DISCO Hyperdata Browser, Tabulator).

Daniel Lewis has published another post about OpenLink Data Spaces (ODS) functionality titled:A few new features in OpenLink Data Spaces, that exposes additional features (some hot out the oven).

OpenLink Data Spaces (ODS) now officially supports:

• Attention Profiling Markup Language (APML).
• Meaning of a Tag (MOAT) in conjunction with Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Social-Semantic Cloud of Tags (SCOT).
• OAuth - an Open Authentication Protocol

Which means that OpenLink Data Spaces support all of the main standards being discussed in the DataPortability Interest Group!

APML Example:

All users of ODS automatically get a dynamically created APML file, for example: APML profile for Kingsley Idehen

The URI for an APML profile is: http://myopenlink.net/dataspace/<ods-username>/apml.xml

Meaning of a Tag Example:

All users of ODS automatically have tag cloud information embedded inside their SIOC file, for example: SIOC for Kingsley Idehen on the Myopenlink.net installation of ODS.

But even better, MOAT has been implemented in the ODS Tagging System. This has been demonstrated in a recent test blog post by my colleague Mitko Iliev, the blog post comes up on the tag search: http://myopenlink.net/dataspace/imitko/weblog/Mitko%27s%20Weblog/tag/paris

Which can be put through the OpenLink Data Browser:

• OpenLink Data Browser with Mitko Iliev’s Paris Blog Tag

OAuth Example:

OAuth Tokens and Secrets can be created for any ODS application. To do this:

1. you can log in to MyOpenlink.net beta service, the Live Demo ODS installation, an EC2 instance, or your local installation
2. then go to ‘Settings’
3. and then you will see ‘OAuth Keys’
4. you will then be able to choose the applications that you have instantiated and generate the token and secret for that app.

Related Document (Human) Links

• OpenLink Data Spaces Official Page
• OpenLink Software Page
• OpenLink Data Spaces Wikipedia Page
• Attention Profiling Markup Language Project Website
• Meaning of a Tag Project Website
• Simple Knowledge Organisation Systems Project Website
• Social-Semantic Cloud of Tags Project Website
• OAuth Protocol Website
• DataPortability.org Website
• Semantically Interlinked Online Communities Project Website
  

Remember (as per my most recent post about ODS), ODS is about unobtrusive fusion of Web 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0+ usage and interaction patterns. Thanks to a lot of recent standardization in the Semantic Web realm (e.g SPARQL), we are now employ the MOAT, SKOS, and SCOT ontologies as vehicles for Structured Tagging.

Structured Tagging?

This is how we take a key Web 2.0 feature (think 2D in a sense), bend it over, to create a Linked Data Web (Web 3.0) experience unobtrusively (see earlier posts re. Dimensions of Web). Thus, nobody has to change how they tag or where they tag, just expose ODS to the URLs of your Web 2.0 tagged content and it will produce URIs (Structured Data Object Identifiers) and a lnked data graph for your Tags Data Space (nee. Tag Cloud). ODS will construct a graph which exposes tag subject association, tag concept alignment / intended meaning, and tag frequencies, that ultimately deliver "relative disambiguation" of intended Tag Meaning (i.e. you can easily discern the taggers meaning via the Tags actual Data Space which is associated with the tagger). In a nutshell, the dynamics of relevance matching, ranking, and the like, change immensely without futile timeless debates about matters such as:

What's the Linked Data value proposition?

What's the Linked Data business model?

XML vs RDF

XQuery vs SPARQL

What's the Semantic Web Killer application?

We can just get on with demonstrating Linked Data value using what exists on the Web today. This is the approach we are deliberately taking with ODS.

Related Items

Stefano Mazzocch's response to Clay Shirky's 2005 talk titled: Ontology is Overrated: Links, Tags and Post-hoc Metadata

Tom Gruber's post titled: Ontology of Folksonomy: A Mash-up of Apples and Oranges

Tip: This post is best viewed via an RDF aware User Agent (e.g. a Browser or Data Viewer). I say this because the permalink of this post is a URI in a Linked Data Space (My Blog) comprised of more data than meets the eye (i.e. what you see when you read this post via a Document Web Browser) :-)