Updating musicontology.com?

[Yves Raimond]

Hello!

I think it's fair to say that the current musicontology.com website is
not particularly pretty and usable, and might scare quite a few people
away from actually using MO. On the list of things I don't
particularly like on it:

* Too much text on details that will only be relevant to RDF geeks;
* A list of terms/properties doesn't make it obvious how to use them
in practice;
* The "level" thing is confusing IMHO;
* It doesn't look very good!

I was thinking that we should consider rebuilding the site in a
similar way as rdfa.info or www.easyrdf.org, with a focus on examples
in specific syntaxes (RDFa, JSON-LD and Turtle), "playgrounds" and
specific use-cases. The full specification would still be there, but
it wouldn't be the landing page, and would only be there for people
wanting a detailed explanation of what a class or a property means.
The examples should also be clustered around specific use-cases of the
MO (e.g. standard editorial info, classical music, music production
workflow, segmentation), to make sure we point the right users to the
right examples.

I had a first shot at a very barebone landing page and the start of a
"getting started" page at
https://github.com/moustaki/musicontology.com, using Bootstrap, and
available there temporarily:
http://raimond.me.uk/resources/musicontology.com/

A couple of questions:

* Is it worth doing? Or are we happy with the current site?
* If it is worth doing, would anybody want to give me a hand on that?

Cheers!
Yves

[Bo Ferri]

Hi Yves,

On 1/27/2013 9:17 PM, Yves Raimond wrote:
>
> I had a first shot at a very barebone landing page and the start of a
> "getting started" page at
> https://github.com/moustaki/musicontology.com, using Bootstrap, and
> available there temporarily:
> http://raimond.me.uk/resources/musicontology.com/
>

+1

This looks modern and should be intuitive for a "common" web developer.

> A couple of questions:
>
> * Is it worth doing? Or are we happy with the current site?

Yes, of course, it is worth doing!

> * If it is worth doing, would anybody want to give me a hand on that?

Yes, of course, please let me know what I can do. However, my resources
are limited to afterwork and/or weekend times (maybe as yours ;) ).

Please let me know, how I cann assist you :)

Cheers

[Bo Ferri]

PS: maybe we can also update the ontology specification itself by
utilising a more modern ontology specification generation tool � la
Parrot (or similar)

PPS: maybe pushing forward an official alignment of the Music Ontology
to schema.org related parts might also be useful for this update, or?

[Nicholas J Humfrey]

I keep spending far too much time working on EasyRdf but very happy to
help on the specification generation on musicontology.com.

I started writing phpspecgen and would like to do some more on it.


nick.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Music Ontology Specification Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> music-ontology-sp...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> music-ontology-specific...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

[Gregg Kellogg]

On Jan 27, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Yves Raimond <yves.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I think it's fair to say that the current musicontology.com website is
> not particularly pretty and usable, and might scare quite a few people
> away from actually using MO. On the list of things I don't
> particularly like on it:
>
> * Too much text on details that will only be relevant to RDF geeks;
> * A list of terms/properties doesn't make it obvious how to use them
> in practice;
> * The "level" thing is confusing IMHO;
> * It doesn't look very good!
>
> I was thinking that we should consider rebuilding the site in a
> similar way as rdfa.info or www.easyrdf.org, with a focus on examples
> in specific syntaxes (RDFa, JSON-LD and Turtle), "playgrounds" and
> specific use-cases. The full specification would still be there, but
> it wouldn't be the landing page, and would only be there for people
> wanting a detailed explanation of what a class or a property means.
> The examples should also be clustered around specific use-cases of the
> MO (e.g. standard editorial info, classical music, music production
> workflow, segmentation), to make sure we point the right users to the
> right examples.

Great idea! I had something to do with rdfa.info; I might be able to help a bit.

> I had a first shot at a very barebone landing page and the start of a
> "getting started" page at
> https://github.com/moustaki/musicontology.com, using Bootstrap, and
> available there temporarily:
> http://raimond.me.uk/resources/musicontology.com/
>
> A couple of questions:
>
> * Is it worth doing? Or are we happy with the current site?

Definitely worth doing, time for an update.

> * If it is worth doing, would anybody want to give me a hand on that?

I can help a bit, but I have a history of getting involved too much with similar initiatives; I'll help, but only have a limited amount of time (along with everyone else, i'm sure).

Gregg

> Cheers!
> Yves

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Music Ontology Specification Group" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to music-ontology-specific...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to music-ontology-sp...@googlegroups.com.

[Gregg Kellogg]

On Jan 27, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Bo Ferri <za...@smiy.org> wrote:

> PS: maybe we can also update the ontology specification itself by

> utilising a more modern ontology specification generation tool á la
> Parrot (or similar)

I have some software that uses a JSON-LD representation of the OWL ontology to generate fairly dynamic specs, which could probably be re-purposed for M.O. I've also done some work in Ruby for generating spec output.

> PPS: maybe pushing forward an official alignment of the Music Ontology
> to schema.org related parts might also be useful for this update, or?

Agreed; I think this would be a good thing, and there are clearly already some congruent classes and properties. However, I suspect that it's not going to be a simple owl:sameProperty/sameClass, or even subClassOf/subPropertyOf. Rather, it might be a set of use cases for representing MO examples using Schema.org.

Gregg

> On 1/27/2013 9:26 PM, Bo Ferri wrote:
>> Hi Yves,
>>
>> On 1/27/2013 9:17 PM, Yves Raimond wrote:
>>>
>>> I had a first shot at a very barebone landing page and the start of a
>>> "getting started" page at
>>> https://github.com/moustaki/musicontology.com, using Bootstrap, and
>>> available there temporarily:
>>> http://raimond.me.uk/resources/musicontology.com/
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> This looks modern and should be intuitive for a "common" web developer.
>>
>>> A couple of questions:
>>>
>>> * Is it worth doing? Or are we happy with the current site?
>>
>> Yes, of course, it is worth doing!
>>
>>> * If it is worth doing, would anybody want to give me a hand on that?
>>
>> Yes, of course, please let me know what I can do. However, my resources
>> are limited to afterwork and/or weekend times (maybe as yours ;) ).
>>
>> Please let me know, how I cann assist you :)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Music Ontology Specification Group" group.

> To post to this group, send email to music-ontology-sp...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to music-ontology-specific...@googlegroups.com.

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 1/27/13 3:29 PM, Bo Ferri wrote:
> PS: maybe we can also update the ontology specification itself by

> utilising a more modern ontology specification generation tool á la

> Parrot (or similar)
>
> PPS: maybe pushing forward an official alignment of the Music Ontology
> to schema.org related parts might also be useful for this update, or?

+1

Kingsley

>
> On 1/27/2013 9:26 PM, Bo Ferri wrote:
>> Hi Yves,
>>
>> On 1/27/2013 9:17 PM, Yves Raimond wrote:
>>>
>>> I had a first shot at a very barebone landing page and the start of a
>>> "getting started" page at
>>> https://github.com/moustaki/musicontology.com, using Bootstrap, and
>>> available there temporarily:
>>> http://raimond.me.uk/resources/musicontology.com/
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> This looks modern and should be intuitive for a "common" web developer.
>>
>>> A couple of questions:
>>>
>>> * Is it worth doing? Or are we happy with the current site?
>>
>> Yes, of course, it is worth doing!
>>
>>> * If it is worth doing, would anybody want to give me a hand on that?
>>
>> Yes, of course, please let me know what I can do. However, my resources
>> are limited to afterwork and/or weekend times (maybe as yours ;) ).
>>
>> Please let me know, how I cann assist you :)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Kingsley Idehen]

+1

[Yves Raimond]

Hello all!

Thanks for all the replies! I just realised that I pushed the code to
my own repo yesterday, I just moved it to the right place:
https://github.com/motools/musicontology.com
which I believe all of you have access to?

* Nick, Gregg, do you mind taking a look at the spec gen side of things?
* Thomas, do you mind taking a look at the examples page with me?

I'll have a shot at a 'background'/'use-case' page asap.

Thomas, about your schema.org point, I think we should definitely do
that as well, but perhaps as a separate piece of work?

Cheers!
y

[Kurt J]

+1 for the new look.

[Bo Ferri]

Hi,

On 1/28/2013 11:26 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> Thanks for all the replies! I just realised that I pushed the code to
> my own repo yesterday, I just moved it to the right place:
> https://github.com/motools/musicontology.com
> which I believe all of you have access to?

Thanks a lot for doing so ;)

>
> * Nick, Gregg, do you mind taking a look at the spec gen side of things?

Btw, there is https://github.com/specgen/specgen as well for spec gen.
However, I think that the template needs a huge update. Nevertheless, it
is one of the spec gen tools that supports RDFa very well (besides
Parrot, afaik).

> * Thomas, do you mind taking a look at the examples page with me?

Yep. We should focus on easy examples at the beginning. For example,
those that are already deployed at BBC or MusicBrainz (or similar).

>
> I'll have a shot at a 'background'/'use-case' page asap.
>
> Thomas, about your schema.org point, I think we should definitely do
> that as well, but perhaps as a separate piece of work?

Yep. There was already a starting point some time ago at
https://github.com/mhausenblas/schema-org-rdf/issues/6


Cheers,


Bo/T

[seralf]

great idea!

[Victor Rodriguez Doncel]

When will http://musicontology.com be up again?

Thanks!

Víctor

[Barry Norton]

Yves, I personally, and the EUCLID project in general, would be very keen to help with this.

As you know there's a couple of changes we've requested 'on the stack' and we have a bunch of MusicBrainz encoding and query examples.

Barry

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Music Ontology Specification Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to music-ontology-specific...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to music-ontology-sp...@googlegroups.com.

[Yves Raimond]

That's a very good question - it is hosted on the same server as
dbtune.org, which seems to be suffering an outage since last Friday. I
am trying to get hold of someone at Queen Mary, which is hosting the
server.

Best,
y

[Yves Raimond]

Oh - that would be great! Do you have access to the Git repo already?

[Yves Raimond]

Right - it looks like I still have access to the VM host - I gave a
kick to the two VMs and they appear to be back!

Best,
y

[Yves Raimond]

Hello,

[snip]

>> * Nick, Gregg, do you mind taking a look at the spec gen side of things?
>
>
> Btw, there is https://github.com/specgen/specgen as well for spec gen.
> However, I think that the template needs a huge update. Nevertheless, it is
> one of the spec gen tools that supports RDFa very well (besides Parrot,
> afaik).
>

I just gave it a shot, and prodded the template to fit within
bootstrap and the overall site:

http://raimond.me.uk/resources/musicontology.com/docs/specification.html

It made me realise how messy the current RDF is! Quite a few terms in
there that have not a lot use anymore (remember ED2K for example?),
are overly specific (e.g. djmixed) or have overly specific
descriptions (e.g. freedownload). I'll probably have a shot at
cleaning the RDF.

>
>> * Thomas, do you mind taking a look at the examples page with me?
>
>
> Yep. We should focus on easy examples at the beginning. For example, those
> that are already deployed at BBC or MusicBrainz (or similar).
>

Did you get a chance to look at more examples Thomas?

Cheers,
y

[Bo Ferri]

Hi Yves,

On 5/26/2013 11:20 PM, Yves Raimond wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [snip]
>
>>> * Nick, Gregg, do you mind taking a look at the spec gen side of things?
>>
>>
>> Btw, there is https://github.com/specgen/specgen as well for spec gen.
>> However, I think that the template needs a huge update. Nevertheless, it is
>> one of the spec gen tools that supports RDFa very well (besides Parrot,
>> afaik).
>>
>
> I just gave it a shot, and prodded the template to fit within
> bootstrap and the overall site:
>
> http://raimond.me.uk/resources/musicontology.com/docs/specification.html

coolo, I just opened an issue at Github, because I saw for some reason
this change via Github. Now I read this e-mail and realised that you
utilised specgen for generation - so it might be a bug in specgen rather
than in the MO specification ;)

but it's php specgen (Nick's try on ontology specification documentation
generation) that you utilised for generation, or?

I think there should be some backlinks (anchors) from the term to the
summary/head, or?

>
> It made me realise how messy the current RDF is! Quite a few terms in
> there that have not a lot use anymore (remember ED2K for example?),
> are overly specific (e.g. djmixed) or have overly specific
> descriptions (e.g. freedownload). I'll probably have a shot at
> cleaning the RDF.

yep, some time ago I also tried to wrap some term for cleaning in the
mailing list, see
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/music-ontology-specification-group/XQ97ce8lcmE/ivpZSWJoBOIJ

>
>>
>>> * Thomas, do you mind taking a look at the examples page with me?

yeah, for sure (see below).

>>
>>
>> Yep. We should focus on easy examples at the beginning. For example, those
>> that are already deployed at BBC or MusicBrainz (or similar).
>>
>
> Did you get a chance to look at more examples Thomas?

No, sorry - what a shame - I hadn't have the chance to work on this yet.
however, I hope that I'll get a week off in mid June (10 - 14) and that
there might be some time left to work on it.

cheerio,


Bo/T

[Nicholas Humfrey]

Looks great! Well done Yves!

I will try and get some phpspecgen enhancements and fixes done this week.

Anything obviously missing?


nick.

[Yves Raimond]

Well, I guess the main thing is that, sadly, I had to fork it. I
didn't realise that making it fit within bootstrap would take so much
little tweaks on the actual markup. It's probably worth making that
very, very configurable (e.g. custom CSS classes to add on all tables,
etc.).

Cheers,
y

[Nicholas J Humfrey]

[sorry, this is off-topic I will stop now!]

Ok. Maybe bootstrap HTML should be the default.

I guess the problem with bootstrap is that you have to change your HTML to
match its CSS, whereas normally you change your CSS to match the HTML.

But I agree that it would be good to make the markup very configurable
somehow.

nick.