W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2008

Re: LOD cloud updated

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 11:17:38 +1000
Message-ID: <a1be7e0e0803311817i7222035bo66e789182bee36b0@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Aldo Bucchi" <aldo.bucchi@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org

Aldo,

Sorry for that being a private email btw, I still haven't gotten used
to clicking reply all instead of reply for W3C mailing lists!

I think for one of the most "connected" elements in the graph, FOAF,
is so distributed that it would be impossible to put a number on it,
although approximate values from a popular FOAF search engine might
work. For many of them as you point out one is able to give
approximate values even when the data is not stored in a monolithic
triple store.

I would like a Linked Data diagram which explicitly gave the links
between the FOAF related sites, ie, which sites and whether they do
actually interoperate, as currently a large swatch of the graph is
simply whether they incorporate FOAF terminology at all. It would be
nice to have a restricted set of sites which explicitly utilise links
between FOAF documents, however hacky that may seem with the current
rather unique FOAF conventions.

Just to clarify overall though, is FOAF in its current recommended
usages, ie, give a name and an mboxsha1sum as the "linked data"
considered part of the mainstream? Is extending one of these entries
with a generic seeAlso considered "linked data"? Should FOAF be not
considered Linked Data unless the items are given dereferenceable
URI's using a meaningful foaf terminology term?

Cheers,

Peter

On 01/04/2008, Aldo Bucchi <aldo.bucchi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter,
>
>  I think that Soren meant that it might seem a bit childish ( or small,
>  or not "enterprisish" ) that the news about LOD revolve around a
>  picture.
>  I think he has a point... I have several enterprise applications using
>  semantic web technology for pretty serious stuff and suddenly the
>  marketing shifts to this linked data thingy. Which is actually a very
>  obvious and necessary step ( the semweb is now connecting ) but not
>  very convincing for the *moneymen*... or those who link RDF to RSS or
>  something esotheric.
>
>  Unless you show them the numbers.
>
>  And normally I do know how much concepts I can pull out of my
>  database.... at least the order of magnitude
>
>  40,000 + songs
>  10,000 + artists
>  financial info of 10k companies
>  demographic data of all countries for 5 years
>
>  etc.... making this up just to make a point
>
>  The chart would look more scary if it had some indicator of the amount
>  of knowledge it conveys!
>  Scarier than a bunch of circles with funny acronyms that don't mean
>  anything to most people.
>
>  Biz people I mean
>
>  Best,
>
> A
>
>
>
>  On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On 01/04/2008, Aldo Bucchi <aldo.bucchi@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >  >  Nice I really appreciate your work, but we should also a little careful
>  >  >  >  how to position the LOD effort: it might sound funny to outsiders when
>  >  >  >  the whole LOD Web fit's on one picture and the major LOD news are about
>  >  >  >  updating of that picture ;-)
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > Specify the amount of data ( resources or triples ).
>  >  >  Individual and aggregates ( per type? )
>  >  >
>  >  >  Strength is in the numbers!
>  >
>  >  Not when you are aiming for interoperability... Why do they all have
>  >  to be triple databases anyway? Are sites which simpy have a linked
>  >  data RDF api suitable? Given they haven't pre-generated RDF they won't
>  >  have a clue how many "triples" they reference.
>  >
>  >  Peter
>  >
>
>
>
>
> --
>  :::: Aldo Bucchi ::::
>  +1 858 539 6986
>  +56 9 8429 8300
>  +56 9 7623 8653
>  skype:aldo.bucchi
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 01:18:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:16 UTC