w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire Bootstrapping the Semantic Web through XML and Microformats via GRDDL: Next Steps
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2007-07-24 to 2007-08-31.
10 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
1. Interested
Are you interested in bootstrapping Semantic Web data using GRDDL?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| yes | 10 |
| no |
Details
| Responder | Interested | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Brian Suda | yes | |
| Fabien Gandon | yes | |
| Gustavo Frederico | yes | I'm very much interested in GRDDL and have been following it for weeks since I found out about it. I've been following RDFa aswell. I actually depend on GRDDL and RDFa for some future product initiatives. To allow tools and users to embed RDF in web sites is extremely important to make SW data available. |
| Michael Hausenblas | yes | my 2c at http://mhausenblas.blogr.com/stories/76226/ |
| Roberto Garcia | yes | I have developped a generic XML Schema to OWL complemented with a XML to RDF mapping that can be used to map existing XML metadata (once the corresponding XML Schemas have been mapped) to RDF. More details: http://rhizomik.net/redefer |
| Joshua Shinavier | yes | I haven't really studied up on GRDDL yet, but I intend to get with the program pretty soon and add GRDDL support to my applications. |
| Keith Alexander | yes | http://semwebdev.keithalexander.co.uk/blog/posts/microformats-not-semantic-web |
| Danny Ayers | yes | |
| Michael Schneider | yes | I see the Semantic Web in the very first place as the single world-wide public store of (machine processable) data. Whatever publicly accessible data exists is part of the Semantic Web. So, especially, everything available in XML, for instance microformat instances, are part of the Semantic Web. It is not a question of the representation format, if something belongs to the SW or not. And I do not have the slightest problems with the situation that there are many different format. Indeed, RDF is for many kinds of data not the best suited data format. But, of course, if I want, for instance, execute SPARQL queries on existing microformat data, then I need to view it as RDF. GRDDL is the first choice for converting XML data into RDF. So GRDDL is of utmost importance for the Semantic Web for two reasons: Generally, it participates in the fundamental task of integrating the differently represented data on the Semantic Web. And, specifically, it makes it easily possible for RDF aware tools, browsers, etc., to access the huge amount of available real world microformat data. Thus, I am very interested in GRDDL in general, even if I currently do not have an application, where I need to apply it. |
| Harry Halpin | yes |
2. XML Vocabulary
Are there any namespace-enabled XML vocabularies that you think should be GRDDL-enabled so we can easily convert their instance XML documents into RDF?
Please inform us if you are the maintainer or member of organization (such as a standards body) that maintains the vocabulary. Also, if the vocabulary uses namespace URIs (not URNs), if there is a namespace document at the namespace URI.
Details
| Responder | XML Vocabulary |
|---|---|
| Brian Suda | no |
| Fabien Gandon | SAWSDL to RDF mapping of WSDL, XHTML to RDF version of DC, |
| Gustavo Frederico | |
| Michael Hausenblas | |
| Roberto Garcia | |
| Joshua Shinavier | |
| Keith Alexander | TEI |
| Danny Ayers | |
| Michael Schneider | |
| Harry Halpin | If we can somehow get HL7 (Chime's already done a lot of the work) and Atom that would be a great victory. |
3. Microformat Importance
Microformats are one way of embedding structured data into HTML, and increasingly popular (nearly 500 million web-pages). There are a number of microformat vocabularies activities ranging from calendars to tagging.
What sort of data do you think is most important for the success of the Semantic Web in the Web 2.0 community?
Feel free to add different vocabularies and microformats in the comment box
Summary
| Choice | All responders | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Don’t mind | Don’t want | Ranked 1 | Ranked 2 | Ranked 3 | Ranked 4 | Ranked 5 | Ranked 6 | Ranked 7 | |
| Social Networking: XFN mapping to FOAF. | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| Personal Data: hCard mapping to vCard RDF. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Calendar Data: hCalendar, mapping to RDF Calendar | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||||
| Review Data: hReview, mapping to a Review RDF vocabulary | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Creative Commons: relLicense, mapping to a Creative Commons vocabulary. | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Tagging: relTag, mapping to a tagging RDF vocabulary | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Feeds: hAtom, mapping to Atom/OWL. | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | ||||
Details
| Responder | Social Networking: XFN mapping to FOAF. | Personal Data: hCard mapping to vCard RDF. | Calendar Data: hCalendar, mapping to RDF Calendar | Review Data: hReview, mapping to a Review RDF vocabulary | Creative Commons: relLicense, mapping to a Creative Commons vocabulary. | Tagging: relTag, mapping to a tagging RDF vocabulary | Feeds: hAtom, mapping to Atom/OWL. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brian Suda | Ranked 3 | Ranked 1 | Ranked 1 | Ranked 3 | Ranked 4 | Ranked 5 | Ranked 3 | |
| Fabien Gandon | Ranked 3 | Ranked 1 | Ranked 4 | Don’t mind | Don’t mind | Ranked 2 | Don’t mind | |
| Gustavo Frederico | Ranked 3 | Ranked 5 | Don’t mind | Don’t mind | Ranked 4 | Ranked 1 | Ranked 2 | |
| Michael Hausenblas | Ranked 1 | Ranked 3 | Ranked 2 | Ranked 6 | Ranked 1 | Ranked 2 | Ranked 1 | You may want to revisit http://rbach.priv.at/Microformats/IRC/2007-06-20#T234821 again and read out loud what was actually said: 'half a billion instances of microformatted content'. Is this really equal to 500M pages? |
| Roberto Garcia | Ranked 5 | Ranked 2 | Ranked 1 | Ranked 4 | Don’t want | Ranked 6 | Ranked 3 | |
| Joshua Shinavier | Don’t mind | Don’t mind | Don’t mind | Ranked 5 | Don’t mind | Ranked 5 | Ranked 7 | |
| Keith Alexander | Don’t mind | Don’t mind | Don’t mind | Don’t mind | Don’t mind | Don’t mind | Don’t mind | This probably isn't a very helpful answer - I don't feel that any microformats are particularly important because what matters is what you can do with the data; while there might be a lot of microformatted web pages, I've yet to see anyone do anything very interesting with them. Also, many of those pages likely don't parse, or don't contain very valuable data; quality is more important than quantity. |
| Danny Ayers | Ranked 3 | Ranked 2 | Ranked 2 | Ranked 3 | Ranked 2 | Ranked 3 | Ranked 3 | |
| Michael Schneider | Ranked 7 | Ranked 7 | Ranked 7 | Ranked 7 | Ranked 7 | Ranked 7 | Ranked 7 | Sorry for stereotypically ranking everything at highest value. For each of the mentioned sorts of data (and probably for many more), there will surely be important applications in the future, for which this sort of data is of high value. Perhaps, I, personally, will never come in a situation, where I /directly/ need to work with, say, tagging data. But it is highly probably, that the same tagging data will influence my work in the future /indirectly/, be it that it plays a role in search results spit out by my (then) favorite semantic search engine, or one of my semantic web agents will negotiate with another agent, which uses tagging data from somewhere, or whatever. |
| Harry Halpin | Ranked 7 | Ranked 3 | Ranked 4 | Ranked 5 | Ranked 6 | Ranked 1 | Ranked 2 |
4. Microformat Work?
summary | by responder | by choice
Would you be interested in working on deploying GRDDL for the following microformats? This would include working on a RDF vocabulary, debugging or helping create the XSLT that transforms the microformat into RDF, and creating a web-page for the profile URI, and advocacy in general.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| XFN for Social Networking, mapping to FOAF. | 2 |
| hCard for personal data, mapping to vCard RDF. | 2 |
| hCalendar, mapping to RDF Calendar | 1 |
| hReview, mapping to a Review RDF vocabulary | 3 |
| relLicense, mapping to a Creative Commons vocabulary | 1 |
| relTag, mapping to a tagging RDF vocabulary | 5 |
| relTag, mapping to a tagging RDF vocabulary | 4 |
| hAtom, mapping to Atom/OWL. | 3 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Microformat Work? |
|---|---|
| Brian Suda | |
| Fabien Gandon |
|
| Gustavo Frederico | |
| Michael Hausenblas |
|
| Roberto Garcia | |
| Joshua Shinavier | |
| Keith Alexander | |
| Danny Ayers | |
| Michael Schneider | |
| Harry Halpin |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| XFN for Social Networking, mapping to FOAF. |
|
| hCard for personal data, mapping to vCard RDF. |
|
| hCalendar, mapping to RDF Calendar |
|
| hReview, mapping to a Review RDF vocabulary |
|
| relLicense, mapping to a Creative Commons vocabulary |
|
| relTag, mapping to a tagging RDF vocabulary |
|
| relTag, mapping to a tagging RDF vocabulary |
|
| hAtom, mapping to Atom/OWL. |
|
5. Ontology Repository
Do you think there should be some central RDF vocabulary or ontology repository to help users find RDF vocabularies, and vocabulary owners maintain them?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| yes | 7 |
| no | 2 |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Ontology Repository | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Brian Suda | ||
| Fabien Gandon | no | |
| Gustavo Frederico | yes | I actually think there should be an RDF vocabulary BROKER somewhere on the Internet. And a couple of RDF vocabulary repositories to bootstrap data. The broker would have all sorts of open APIs to access it programmatically: JSON, XML over HTTP, web services, URLs pointing to pure RDFs and so on. After the broker is built other vocabularies will pop-up on the Internet. |
| Michael Hausenblas | yes | something like http://schemaweb.info/? |
| Roberto Garcia | yes | http://www.schemaweb.info was an interesting initiative that might be the starting point for such a repository |
| Joshua Shinavier | yes | Not that there needs to be a single source for RDF vocabularies, but a service which provides a simple and flexible way of publishing, versioning and managing vocabularies would be nice. |
| Keith Alexander | no | there's no harm in there being some repositories, but there probably shouldn't be one canonical one. |
| Danny Ayers | yes | Ideally more than one repository... |
| Michael Schneider | yes | But this is a /weak/ "Yes", more of a "not No"! I say, if some repository is needed, it will be build by people who need it. Perhaps only for those few vocabularies, which are of high value for some specific community. If there are several of those small repositories, other people or enterprises will probably come and build "meta" repositories on top of them, etc. So this will grow, anyway. My "Yes" does not mean that I think there should be a single dedicated organization which is responsible for managing such a repository. |
| Harry Halpin | yes | If only funding would appear.. |
More details on responses
- Brian Suda: last responded on 25, July 2007 at 21:51 (UTC)
- Fabien Gandon: last responded on 1, August 2007 at 09:25 (UTC)
- Gustavo Frederico: last responded on 7, August 2007 at 19:02 (UTC)
- Michael Hausenblas: last responded on 7, August 2007 at 19:12 (UTC)
- Roberto Garcia: last responded on 7, August 2007 at 19:56 (UTC)
- Joshua Shinavier: last responded on 7, August 2007 at 22:11 (UTC)
- Keith Alexander: last responded on 7, August 2007 at 22:24 (UTC)
- Danny Ayers: last responded on 8, August 2007 at 07:57 (UTC)
- Michael Schneider: last responded on 8, August 2007 at 11:43 (UTC)
- Harry Halpin: last responded on 30, August 2007 at 00:45 (UTC)
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
Report issues
on GitHub project