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

Re: LOD cloud updated

From: Mark Diggory <mdiggory@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:50:00 -0700
Message-Id: <17D4D546-58FE-409A-B2F3-64E0E42A0D26@mit.edu>
To: public-lod@w3.org

I think that if someday we have DSpace instances in the LOD cloud, we  
are talking about multiple sites publishing a service and not just  
one, likewise, we are using RDFS like DCMI elements, terms and types  
and ORE resource maps.  So, if someday in the future, one were to  
update the cloud to include this, what would be its representation?  
DSpace? DCMI? With usage of DCMI RDFS already in the cloud, should  
that be a bubble in its own right?


On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> (Thanks for adding the RKBExplorer stuff, Richard.)
> With reference to size, which of course matters:
> One of the nice things of Richard's cloud is that he does not get  
> pedantic
> about exactly what a bubble means. So some of them are  
> straightforward LOD
> sites; others are multiple sites, and still others are almost just
> ontologies against which people are publishing linked data. This is  
> good,
> because otherwise we would have long discussions about the  
> semantics of
> bubbles and more worringly arcs!
> But perhaps a little more meaning could be introduced to give a  
> sense to
> casual observers (and others) that this is no just a collection of  
> 27 (or
> whatever) sites.
> Would it be hard to make some of the bubbles (such as FOAF and  
> RKBExplorer)
> clouds themselves, to indicate this?
> I rather like the idea that the LOD cloud has become a cloud of  
> clouds.
> Best
> Hugh
> On 01/04/2008 23:15, "Uldis Bojars" <captsolo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Richard Cyganiak  
>> <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>>>> Specify the amount of data ( resources or triples ).
>>>> Individual and aggregates ( per type? )
>>>> Strength is in the numbers!
>>> I agree that a vocabulary for describing datasets would be a good  
>>> thing. And
>>> keeping track of and publishing numbers about the amount of data  
>>> would also
>>> be good. I'm afraid I don't have the bandwidth to do any of those  
>>> things at
>>> the moment, but if anyone has some spare cycles and wants to  
>>> chronicle the
>>> project's growth in a more quantitative way, that would be great.
>>>> 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.
>>> That's a very good point.
>> The beauty of the current picture (thanks, Richard!) is in its
>> simplicity. Anyone can look at it and say: "I understand this. Linked
>> data is a great idea.". Cluttering figure with numbers may look scary
>> but will this "scary-ness" help or defeat the purpose of the  
>> figure? I
>> am afraid it will be the later for many. Think iPhone versus more
>> complex-looking (but less successful) devices.
>> Having said that, if someone collected together and kept track of
>> numbers, that would be a great resource. Our colleague Sheila [1] has
>> done some work on mapping ontologies / namespaces on the Semantic  
>> Web.
>> While her work does not map 1:1 and is at a finer-grained level,
>> perhaps it can feed into work of analyzing linked data usage on the
>> web if someone is doing that. (Which might not be that trivial of a
>> task, unless someone already have the numbers at hand)
>> [1] http://www.deri.ie/about/team/member/sheila_kinsella/
>> P.S. Just to reiterate: not against quantitative indication of the
>> amount of linked data, but would keep things simple and put them in a
>> separate table / figure.
>> Uldis
>> [ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 16:50:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:49 UTC