I have not tested these with the most recent versions of the data set but they should be close.<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/example-sparql-queries/">http://www.taxonconcept.org/example-sparql-queries/</a></div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/example-sparql-queries/"></a><a href="http://about.geospecies.org/sparql.xhtml">http://about.geospecies.org/sparql.xhtml</a></div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://about.geospecies.org/sparql.xhtml"></a>This live query works on the LOD cloud I just tried it:</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://bit.ly/aBBFCA">http://bit.ly/aBBFCA</a></div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://bit.ly/aBBFCA"></a>If you look through by previous emails on this list you will see other examples.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also Sindice does some inferencing, you can try it here.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://inspector.sindice.com/index.jsp">http://inspector.sindice.com/index.jsp</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>
You can try it with this occurrence record <a href="http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/a71fda68-024a-4020-a34c-64dce7935e5f.rdf">http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/a71fda68-024a-4020-a34c-64dce7935e5f.rdf</a></div><div><br></div>
<div>- Pete<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Bertram Ludaescher <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ludaesch@ucdavis.edu">ludaesch@ucdavis.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
On a somewhat related note:<div><br></div><div>Has someone pointers to "real-world reasoning examples", i.e., where datasets, assertions, or other semantic web or LOD "knowledge" is used to make "interesting" inferences?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Additionally, what about simple querying (as opposed to reasoning) examples over LOD and other "data out there"? (I realize that the borderline between querying and reasoning is not as clear-cut as the terminology seems to imply; e.g., Datalog rules are commonly viewed as queries, while logic programming rules are viewed as inference rules)</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm asking also because next quarter I'll be teaching an undergraduate class on scientific data management and I'm looking for interesting datasets to play with..</div><div><br></div><div>
Thanks, best</div>
<div><br></div><div>Bertram</div><div><br></div><div><font color="#888888"><div>--</div><div>Bertram Ludäscher</div><div>Professor of Computer Science</div><div>Dept of Computer Science & Genome Center</div><div>University of California, Davis </div>
<div><a href="mailto:ludaesch@ucdavis.edu" target="_blank">ludaesch@ucdavis.edu</a> / <a href="http://daks.ucdavis.edu" target="_blank">daks.ucdavis.edu</a></div><div>Phone: +1-530-554-1800</div></font><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Paul Murray <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pmurray@anbg.gov.au" target="_blank">pmurray@anbg.gov.au</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>><br>
> Anybody can do that, so how do we certify metadata sources as "trusted" in our community? The state of the LOD cloud at the moment reminds me of the early days of email and the Web, when it was reasonably "safe" to assume that users' intentions were good. Then came viruses, trojans, phishing scams, etc. If those kinds of things had been considered at the start of email and the Web and considered in its design, it would have been easier to prevent (or reduce) the evolution of nefarious uses of the Web. Perhaps we should be thinking about that more now when we are in the early stages of designing for the "semantic web".<br>
<br>
</div>"The cloud" is never going to be a consistent ontology (it only takes one person asserting "A is not A" ). When you ask a reasoner to reason, you always give it a limited set of triples that you trust for its axioms. I haven't looked into it yet in any detail, but I think that this is the role of SPARQL - it becomes possible to say "using the reasoning rules *here* and *here*, reason over all the triples served up at at <a href="http://biodiversity.org.au" target="_blank">biodiversity.org.au</a> and <a href="http://zoobank.org" target="_blank">zoobank.org</a>". The other alternative is "importing" all of the individual URIs at <a href="http://biodiversity.org.au" target="_blank">biodiversity.org.au</a>, which is obviously infeasible.<br>
<div><br>
> There has been the suggestion made by several people that we need a second kind of Darwin Core, an RDF recommendation that will allow for deep semantic reasoning.<br>
<br>
</div>I don't think you need an entirely different DwC. What will serve the purpose is a auxiliary vocabulary document. A separate document with OWL rules about the DwC predicates, which you can choose to import and reason over. Those rules don't need to be in the document defining the vocabulary. Perhaps more than one ruleset.<br>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
------<br>
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>Please consider the environment before printing this email.<br>
<br>
------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
tdwg-content mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
tdwg-content mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br>Pete DeVries<br>Department of Entomology<br>University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>445 Russell Laboratories<br>
1630 Linden Drive<br>Madison, WI 53706<br><a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">TaxonConcept Knowledge Base</a> / <a href="http://lod.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">GeoSpecies Knowledge Base</a><br><a href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base</a><br>
------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div>