Apis and APIS a wildlife ontology

By a mile the highlight of last week or so was the 2nd Linked Data meet-up. Silver and Georgi did a great job of organising the day and I came away with a real sense that not only are we on the cusp of seeing a lot of data on the web but also that the UK is at the centre of this particular revolution. All very exciting.

For my part I presented the work we’ve been doing on Wildlife Finder – how we’re starting to publish and consume data on the web. Ed Summers has a great write up of what we’re doing I’ve also published my slides here:

I also joined Paul Miller, Jeni Tennison, Ian Davis and Timo Hannay on a panel session discussing Linked Data in the enterprise.

In terms of Wildlife Finder there are a few things that I wanted to highlight:

  1. If you’re interested in the RDF and how we’re modelling the data we’ve documented the wildlife ontology here. In addition to the ontology itself we’ve also included some background on why we modelled the information in the way we have.
  2. If you want to get you’re hands on the RDF/XML then either add .rdf to the end of most of our URLs (more on this later) or configure your client to request RDF/XML – we’ve implemented content negotiation so you’ll just get the data.
  3. But… we’ve not implemented everything just yet. Specifically the adaptations aren’t published as RDF – this is because we’re making a few changes to the structure of this information and I didn’t want to publish the data and then change it. Nor have we published information on the species conservation status that’s simply because we’ve not finish yet (sorry).
  4. It’s not all RDF – we are also marking-up our taxa pages with the species microformat which gives more structure to the common and scientific names.

Anyway I hope you find this useful.

Humanity Connected

Digital Revolution, a new BBC TV programme, was launched last Friday. Due to be broadcast next year, the programme will be looking back over the first 20 years of the web and considering what the future might hold. The show will be considering how the web has changed society and the implications for things like security, privacy and the economy.

Tim Berners-Lee. Photograph by Documentally, some rights reserved.
Tim Berners-Lee. Photograph by Documentally, some rights reserved.

Unlike — well probably every other TV programme I’ve ever come across — each programme will be influenced and debated on the web during it’s production. Some of rushes and interviews will be made available on the web (under permissive terms) so that anyone can contribute to the debate, helping to shape the final programme.

To kick all this off the BBC hosted a debate chaired by Aleks Krotoski with Tim Berners-Lee, Bill Thompson, Susan Greenfield and Chris Anderson. The audience was almost as impressive as the folks up on stage a great mix of geeks and journalists, and luckily I managed to wangle an invite (probably because I’ve had a tiny, tiny role on the project).

Anyway… the presentations were very cool, and while I tweeted the best bits on the day I thought I would write up a short post summing it all up. You know, contributing to the debate and all that.

The thing that struck me most were the discussions and points made around the way in which the web has provided a platform for creativity, and the risks to it’s future because of governments’ failure to understand it (OK, the failure to understand it is my interpretation, not the view expressed by the speakers).

I’ve written previously about how the web’s generative nature has helped enable an eruption of creativity, spawning a new economy in it’s wake; and how governments have failed to grasp that it’s the people that use the medium that need policing not the medium itself. But as you might expect from such an illustrious bunch of people the panel managed to nail the point much better than I ever could.

To misquote TimBL: The web should be like paper. Government should be able to prosecute if you misuse it, but they shouldn’t limit what you are able to do with it. When you buy paper you aren’t limited in what can be written or drawn on it, the and like paper the Internet shouldn’t be set up in such a way as to constrain it’s use.

The reason this is important is because it helps to preserve the web’s generative nature. TimBL points out that people are creative, they simply need platform for that creativity, and if that platform is to be the Web then it needs to support everyone, anyone should be able to express that creativity and that means it needs to be open.

As an aside there was a discussion as to whether or not access to the Internet is a ‘human right’ — I’m not sure whether it is or not, but it’s worth considering whether or not if everyone had access to the Web whether it could be used to solve problems in the developing world. For example, by allowing communities to share information on how to dig wells and maintain irrigation systems, information on health care and generally providing educational material. It is very easy, for us in the West to think of the Web as synonymous with the content and services currently provided on it and whether they would be useful in developing countries. But the point really should be if anyone, anywhere in the world where able to create and share information what would they do with it? My hope would be that the services offered would reflect local needs — whether that be social networking in US colleges or water purification in East Africa.

Of course being open and free for all to use doesn’t mean that everything on the web will be wonderful, or indeed legal; no more so than paper ensures wonderful prose because it is open. Or as TimBL puts it:

Just because you can read everything out there doesn’t mean you should. If you found a piece of paper blowing in the wind you wouldn’t expect it to be edifying.

But what does open mean?

Personally I think that an open web is one that seeks to preserve it’s generative nature. But the discussion last Friday also focused on the implications for privacy and snooping.

Governments the world over, including to our shame the current UK Government, are seeking to limit the openness of the web; that is rather than addressing the specific activities that happen on the web, they are seeking to limit the very platform itself. ISPs around the world, at the behest of governments, are being asked to track and record what you do on the web, everything you do on the web. Elsewhere, content is being filtered, traffic shaped and sites blocked.

The sorts of information being collected can include your search terms (pinned to your IP address) and the sites you visit. Now for sure this might, sometime include a bunch of URIs that point to illegal and nefarious activity, but it might also include (indeed it’s more likely to include) URIs relating to a medical condition or legal advice or a hundred and one other, perfectly legal but equally personal bits of information.

Should a government, its agencies or an ISP be able to capture, store and analyses this data? Personally I think not. And should you think that I’m just being a scaremonger have a read of Bill’s post “The digital age of rights” about the French government’s HADOPI legislation.

On the day Bill Thompson (who, by the way, was on blinding form) summed up the reason why when he summed up his hopes for the web thus:

I hoped that the web would help us know our neighbours better, so that we didn’t go and kill them. That hasn’t happened but it does now mean it’s much harder to get away with it – the world will now know if you do kill them.

Governments know this, which is why some now try to lock down access to the Internet when there is civil unrest in their country. And it is also why the rest of the web tries to help them break though.

Few Western governments, would condone the activities of such Totalitarian states. But it is interesting to consider whether Western governments would support North Korea or Iran setting up the kinds of databases currently being debated in Europe and the States. Now they might point out that the comparison isn’t a fair one since they are nice, democratic governments not nasty oppressive ones. But isn’t that painfully myopic? How do they know who will be in power in the future? How do they know how future governments might seek to use the information they are gathering now?

Seeking to prevent snooping on the Internet aside there is another reason why the web should remain open, and it is the reason why it’s important to fight for One Web.

Susan Greenfield quite rightly pointed out that ‘Knowledge is to be found by creating context, links between facts; it’s the context that counts’. Although she was making the point in an attempt to take a swipe at the Web, trying to suggest that the web is no more than a collection of facts devoid of context, it seems to me that in fact the web is the ultimate context machine. (One sometimes wonders whether she has ever actually used any of the services she complains about, indeed I wonder if she uses the web at all).

The web is, as the name suggest, a set of interconnected links. Those URIs and the links between, as TimBL reminded us, are made by people, they are followed by people and as such you can legitimately think of the Web as humanity connected.

URIs are incredibly powerful, particularly when they are used to identify things in addition to documents. When they are used to identify things (dereferencing to the appropriate data or document format) they can lead to entirely new ways to access information. An example highlighted by TimBL is the impact they might have on TV channels and schedules.

He suggested that the concept of a TV channel was limited and that it would be replaced with complete random access. When anyone, anywhere in the world, can follow a URI to a persistent resource (note he didn’t say click on a link) then the TV channel as a means of discovery and recommendation will be replaced with a trust network. “My friends have watched this, most of them like it…” sort of thing.

Of course to get there we need to change the way we think about the web and the way in which we publish things. And here TimBL pointed to the history of the web, suggesting that the next digital revolution will operate in a similar fashion.

The web originally happened not because senior management thought it was a good idea – it happened because people who ‘got it’ thought it was cool, that it was the right thing and that they were lucky enough to have managers that didn’t get in the way. Indeed this is exactly what happened when TimBL wrote the first web server and client and then when the early web pioneers started publishing web pages. They didn’t do it because they were told to, they didn’t do it because there was any immediate benefit. They did it because they thought that by doing it it would enable cool things to happen. The last couple of years suggests that we are on the cusp of a similar revolution as people start to publish linked data which will in turn result in a new digital revolution.

URL shortening it’s nasty but it’s also unnecessary

URL shortening is just wrong and it’s not just me that thinks so Joshua Schachter thinks so too and Simon Willison has a partial solution. The reason various folk are worried about URL shortening and think that it’s largely evil is because it breaks the web.

"The weakest link" by Darwin Bell. Some rights reserved.
"The weakest link" by Darwin Bell. Some rights reserved.

URLs need to be persistent and that’s not so likely when you use these services. But the ever increasing popularity of Twitter, who impose a 140 character limit on tweets, means that more and more URLs are getting shortened. The ridiculous thing is it isn’t even necessary.

In addition to the rev=”canonical” fix that Kellan proposed Michael has also recently come across longurl.org which

…could solve at least some of these problems. It provides a service to expand short urls from many, many providers into long urls

That’s cool because:

it caches the expansion so has a persistent store of short <> long mappings. They plan to expose these mappings on the web which would also solve [reliance on 3rd party – if they go out of business links break]

Of course what would be extra cool would be if, in addition to the source code being open sourced, so was the underlying database. That way if anything happened to longurl.org someone else could resurrect the service.

All good stuff. But the really ironic thing is that none of this should be neccessary. The ‘in 140 characters or less’ thing isn’t true. As Michael points out:

if i write a tweet to the 140 limit that includes a link then <a href=”whatever”>whatever</a> will be added to the message. so whilst the visible part of the message is limited to 140 chars the message source isn’t. There’s no reason twitter couldn’t use the long url in the href whilst keeping the short url as the link text…

All Twitter really needs to do is provide their own shortening service – if you enter anything that starts “http://&#8221; it gets shortened in the visable message. Of course it doesn’t really need to actually provide a unique, hashed URL, it could convert the anchor text to “link” or the first few letters of the title of the target page while retaining the full-fat, canonical URL in the href.

Linking bbc.co.uk to the Linked Data cloud

I’ve been doing a few talks recently – most recently at the somewhat confused OKCon (Open Knowledge) Conference. The audience was extremely diverse and so I tried to not only talk about what we’ve done but also introduce the concept of Linked Data and explain what it is.

Linked Data is a grassroots project to use web technologies to expose data on the web. It is for many people  synonymous with the semantic web – and while this isn’t quite true. It does, as far as I’m concerned, represent a very large subset of the semantic web project. Interestingly, it can also be thought of as the ‘the web done right’, the web as it was originally designed to be.

But what is it?

Well it can be described with 4 simple rules.

1. Use URIs to identify things not only documents

The web was designed to be a web of things with documents making assertions about those real-world things. Just as a passport or driving license, in the real world, can be thought of as providing an identifier for a person making an assertion about who they are, so URIs can be thought of as providing identifiers for people, concepts or things on the web.

Minting URIs for things rather than pages helps make the web more human literate because it means we are identifying those things that people care about.

2. Use HTTP URIs – they are globally unique and anyone can dereference them

The beauty of the web is its ubiquitous nature – it is decentralised and able to function on any platform. This is because of TimBL’s key invention the HTTP URI.

URI’s are globally unique, open to all and decentralised. Don’t go using DOI or any other identifier – on the web all you need is an HTTP URI.

3. Provide useful information [in RDF] when someone looks up a URI

And obviously you need to provide some information at that URI. When people dereference it you need to give them some data – ideally as RDF as well as HTML. Providing the data as RDF means that machines can process that information for people to use. Making it more useful.

4. Include links to other URIs to let people discover related information

And of course you also need to provide links to other resources so people can continue their journey, and that means contextual links to other resources elsewhere on the web, not just your site.

And that’s it.

Pretty simple really and other than the RDF bit, I would argue that these principles should be followed for any website – they just make sense.

But why?

Before the Web people still networked their computers – but to access those computers you needed to know about the network, the routing and the computers themselves.

For those in their late 30s you’ll probably remember the film War Games – because this was written before the Web had been invented David and Jennifer the two ‘hackers’ had to find and connect directly to each computer; they had to know about the computer’s location.

Phoning up another computer
War Games, 1983

The joy of the web is that it adds a level of abstraction – freeing you from the networking, routing and server location – it lets you focus on the document.

Following the principles of Linked Data allows us to add a further level of abstraction – freeing us from the document and letting us focus on the things, people and stuff that matters to people. It helps us design a system that is more human literate, and more useful.

This is possible because we are identifying real world stuff and the relationships between them.

Free information from data silos

Of course there are other ways of achieving this – lots of sites now provide APIs which is good just not great. Each of those APIs tend to be proprietary and specific to the site. As a result there’s an overhead every time someone wants to add that data source.

These APIs give you access to the silo – but the silo still remains. Using RDF and Linked Data means there is a generic method to access data on the web.

What are we doing at the BBC?

First up it’s worth pointing out the obvious: the BBC is a big place and so it would be wrong to assume that everything we’re doing online is following these principles. But there’s quite a lot of stuff going on that does.

We do have – BBC’s programme support, music discovery and, soon, natural history content all adopting these principles. In other words persistent HTTP URIs that can be dereferenced to HTML, RDF, JSON and mobile views for programmes, artists, species and habitats.

We want HTTP URIs for every concept, not HTML webpage – an individual page is made up of multiple resource, multiple concepts. So for example an artist page transcludes the resource ‘/:artist/news’ and ‘/:artist/reviews’ – but those resources also have their own URIs. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be on the web.

Also because there’s only one web we only have one URI for a resource but a number of different representation for that resource. So the URI for the proggramme ‘Nature’s Great Events’ is:


Through content negotiation we will able to server an HTML, RDF, or mobile document to represent that programme.

We then need to link all of this stuff up within the BBC. So that, for example, you can go from a tracklist on an episode page of Jo Whiley on the Radio 1 site to the U2 artist page and then from there to all episodes of Chris Evans which have played U2. Or from an episode of Nature’s Great Events to the page about Brown Bears to all BBC TV programmes about Brown Bears.

But obviously the BBC is only one corner of the web. So we also need to link with the rest of the web.

Because we’re now thinking on a webscale we’ve started to think about the web as a CMS.

Where URIs already exist to represent that concept we are using it rather than minting our own. The new music site transcludes and links back to Wikipedia to provide biographical information about an artist. Rather than minting our own URI for artist biographic info we use Wikipedia’s.

Likewise when we want to add music metadata to the music site we add MusicBrainz.

What does the history of the web tell us about its future?

Following my invitation to speak at the WWW@20 celebrations [my bit starts about 133 minutes into the video] – this is my attempt to squash the most interesting bits into a somewhat coherent 15 minute presentation.

20 years ago Tim Berners-Lee was working, as a computer scientist, at CERN. What he noticed was that, much like the rest of the world, sharing information between research groups was incredibly difficult. Everyone had their own document management solution, running on their own flavour of hardware over different protocols.  His solution to the problem was a lightweight method of linking up existing (and new) stuff over IP – a hypertext solution – which he dubbed the World Wide Web – and documented in a memo “Information Management: A Proposal“.

Then for a year or so nothing happened. Nothing happened for a number of reasons, including the fact that IP, and the ARPANET before that, was popular in America but less so in Europe. Indeed senior managers at CERN had recently sent out a memo to all department heads reminding them that IP wasn’t a supported protocol – people were being told not to use it!

Also because CERN was full of engineers everyone thought they could build their own solution, do better than what was already there – no one wanted to play together. And of course because CERN was there to do particle physics not information management.

Then TimBL got his hands on a NeXT Cube – officially he was evaluating the machine not building a web server – but, with the support of his manager, that’s what he did — build the first web server and client. There then ensued a period of negotiation to get the idea out freely, for everyone to use, which happened in 1993. This coincided, more or less, with the University of Minnesota’s decision to charge a license fee for Gopher. Then the web took off especially in the US where IP was already popular.

first web server
The Worlds first Webserver.

The beauty of TimBL’s proposal was it’s simplicity – it was designed to work on any platform and importantly with the existing technology. The team knew that to make it work it had to be as easy as possible. He only wanted people to do one thing, that one thing was to give their resources identifiers – links – URIs; so information could be linked and discovered.

This is then is the key invention – the URL.

To make this work URLs were designed to work with existing protocols, in particular it needed to work with FTP and Gopher. That’s why there’s a colon in the URL — so that URLs can be given for stuff that’s already available via other protocols. As an aside, TimBL’s said his biggest mistake was the inclusion of // in the URL — the idea was that one slash meant the resource is on the local machine and two somewhere else on the web, but because everyone used http://foo.bar it means the second / is redundant. I love that this is TimBL’s biggest mistake.

He also implemented a quick tactical solution to get things up and running and demonstrate what he was talking about — HTML. HTML was originally just one of a number of supported doctypes – it wasn’t intended to be the doctype but HTML took off because it was easy. Apparently the plan was to implement a mark-up language that worked a bit like the NeXT application builder. But they didn’t get round to it before Mosaic came along with the first browser (TimBL’s first client was a browser-editor) and then it was all too late. And we’ve been left with something so ugly I doubt even it’s parents love it.

The curious thing, however, is that if you read the original memo — despite its simplicity — it’s clear that we’re still implementing it, we’re still working on the the original spec. Its just that we’ve tended to forget what it said or decided to get sidetracked for a while with some other stuff. So forget about Web 2.0.

For example, the original Web was read-write. Not only that but it used style sheets and a WYSIWYG editing interface — no tags, no mark-up. They didn’t think anyone would want to edit the raw mark-up.

The first web site was read and write
The first web site was read and write

You can also see that the URL’s hidden, you get to it via a property dialog.

This is because the whole point of the web is that it provides a level of abstraction, allowing you to forget about the infrastructure, the servers and the routing. You only needed to worry about the document. For those who remember the film War Games — you will remember that they had to ‘phone up individual computers — they needed this networking information to access the computer, they needed to know its location before they could use it. The beauty of the Web and the URL is that the location shouldn’t matter to the end user.

URIs are there to provide persistent identifiers across the web — they’re not a function of ownership, branding, look and feel, platform or anything else for that matter.

The original team described CERN’s IT ecosystem as a zoo because there were so many different flavours of hardware, different operating systems and protocols in use. The purpose of the web was to be ubiquitous, to work on any machine, open to everyone. It was designed to work no matter what machine or operating system you’re running. This is, of course, achieved by having one identifier, one HTTP URI and defererence that to the appropriate document based on the capacities of that machine.

We should be adopting the same approach today when it comes to delivery to mobile, IPTV, connected devices etc. — we should have one URI for a resource and allow the client to request the document it needs. As Tim intended. The technology is there to do this — we just don’t using it very often.

The original memo also talked about linking people, documents, things and concepts, and data. But we are only now getting around to building it. Through technologies such as OpenID and FOAF we can give people identifiers on the web and describe their social graph, the relationships between those people. And through RDF we can publish information so that machines can process it, describing the nature of and the relationship between the different nodes of data.

Information Management: A Proposal
Information Management: A Proposal by Tim Berners-Lee

The original memo described, and the original server supported, link typing so that you could describe not only real word things but also the nature of the relationship between those things. Like RDF and HTML 5 now does, 20 years later. This focus on data is all a good idea because it lets you treat the web like a giant database. Making computers human literate by linking up bits of data so that the tools, devices and apps connected to the web can do more of the work for you, making it easier to find the things that interest you.

The semantic web project – and TimBL’s original memo – is all about helping people access data in a standard fashion so that we can add another level of abstraction – letting people focus on the things that matter to them. This is what, I believe, we should be striving for for the web’s future because I agree with Dan Brickley, to understand the future of the web you first need to understand it’s origins.

Don’t think about HTML documents – think about the things and concepts that matter to people and give each it’s own identifier, it’s own URI and then put in place the technology to dereference that URI to the document appropriate to the device. Whether that be a desktop PC, a mobile device, an IPTV or third party app.