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

Re: LOD cloud updated

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 21:41:04 +0100
Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F4D675E3-2A91-489F-86AB-58404D8EB648@cyganiak.de>
To: Aldo Bucchi <aldo.bucchi@gmail.com>

Not sure how this factors into the discussion, but I got a good  
chuckle out of this Nova Spivack remix of the LOD cloud I just  
discovered:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nederhoed/2385121075/

Richard


On 3 Apr 2008, at 17:52, Aldo Bucchi wrote:
>
>> 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!
>
> Good point.
> I tend to forget that academia is still majority here... trying to add
> more info to the cloud will introduce subjectivity and ignite endless
> discussions.
> Let me rephrase what I meant:
>
> "We need a source so that business people, or at least non semweb
> related people, can get their hands on something concrete that conveys
> the inmense amount of knowledge that is being internlinked".
>
> You might be in favor or against this, but I can foresee that after
> the W3C conference in Beijing the semantic web will be reborn as the
> linked data web. I have the feeling that this whole "rebranding" is
> starting to catch people's attention ( drupal, social nets, etc ) and
> the LOD cloud is sitting in the midst of it. Its the link that
> everyone passes around.
> I have used it for several sales and fund raising presentations
> myself... and I never get the "oooooh" I expect when that nice drawing
> appears on screen.
>
> Perhaps a PhD student could take this a research subject. Or someone
> majoring in a data mining related area... who can give it the
> "business twist".
>
> Thanks,
> Aldo
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  
> 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/ ]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> :::: Aldo Bucchi ::::
> +1 858 539 6986
> +56 9 8429 8300
> +56 9 7623 8653
> skype:aldo.bucchi
>
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 20:41:51 UTC

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