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

RE: imdb as linked open data?

From: Chris Sizemore <Chris.Sizemore@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 15:54:37 +0100
Message-ID: <22E75701DF55CB459F5EC560C366846704C15970@bbcxue219.national.core.bbc.co.uk>
To: "Tom Heath" <Tom.Heath@talis.com>, <public-lod@w3.org>
Cc: "Michael Smethurst" <Michael.Smethurst@bbc.co.uk>, "Silver Oliver" <Silver.Oliver@bbc.co.uk>, <pepper@ontopia.net>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>

"I'm not sure the Semantic Web is hard; we've just got to be clear about
how we communicate it to people."




-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Heath [mailto:Tom.Heath@talis.com] 
Sent: 04 April 2008 14:27
To: Chris Sizemore; public-lod@w3.org
Cc: Michael Smethurst; Silver Oliver; pepper@ontopia.net; Dan Brickley
Subject: RE: imdb as linked open data?

Hi Chris, all, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lod-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Sizemore
> Sent: 04 April 2008 13:38
> To: public-lod@w3.org
> Cc: Michael Smethurst; Silver Oliver; pepper@ontopia.net
> Subject: RE: imdb as linked open data?
> all--
> so, i was correct in thinking that imdb is interesting to the LOD 
> community.

Correct :)
> i agree that offering "what's a/the Sem Web business model?" 
> is pretty important in order to get buy in... does anyone have any 
> contacts in and around imdb?

I think there might be a Bristol connection here. Perhaps danbri can
help. Dan?

> ***************** forgive the following if it's controversial
> -- i'm honestly just trying to understand better ***********

Discussion is good. Bring it on!
> however, on a more philosophical note, i DON'T think imdb neccesarily 
> needs to explicitly opt into the Web of Data in order for the world at

> large to find Sem Web value in that data... i suppose it would be very

> desirable for imdb to officially provide Open Data/rdf of their 
> content, but i don't think that's the only way for the Sem Web to gain

> value from imdb...
> basically, my premise is this: imdb is on the Web of Docs, and that's 
> good enough for the purpose of answering the question to be posed here

> -- http://www.okkam.org/IRSW2008/ (the problem of identity and 
> reference on the Semantic Web is perhaps the single most important 
> issue for reaching a global scale. Initiatives like LinkedData, 
> OntoWorld and the large number of proposals aiming at using popular 
> URLs (e.g.
> Wikipedia's) as "canonical" URIs (especially for non informational 
> resources) show that a solution to this issue is very urgent and very 
> relevant.)
> at this point in my indoctrination to LOD (i'm a long time semweb 
> fanboy, tho), i guess i disagree with: "From a SemWeb POV this 
> [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/#thing
> <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/#thing> ] is pretty useless since

> the URI doesn't resolve to RDF data.
> Identifiers on the Web are only as good as the data they point to. 
> IMDB URIs point to high-quality web pages, but not to data." -- 
> clearly i understand the difference between "data" and "web page" 
> here, but i don't agree that it's so black and white. i'd suggest: 
> "Identifiers on the Web are only as good as the clarity of what they 
> point to..." i don't think there has to be RDF at the other end to 
> make a URI useful, in many cases...

Chris, yes, I agree; been pondering this myself and for once I don't
agree with Richard; it's not so black and white. I was aiming for
something along these lines with URIs for Email Users:

> at this point, for example at the BBC, my view is that identifiers and

> equivalency relationships are more important than RDF... just barely 
> more important, granted... having a common set of identifiers, like 
> navigable stars in the sky over an ocean, is what we need most now, in

> order to help us aggregate content across the org, and also link it up

> to useful stuff outside our walled garden.

The navigable stars analogy is a beautiful one.

> so, i'm one of those who feel that websites like imdb, wikipedia, and 
> musicbrainz provide great identifiers for non-information resources 
> even in their Web of Docs form. i know that most of you here will feel

> that this is lazy, too informal, and naive of me. but my argument is 
> that, for sites like those i mention (not all websites, by any means) 
> we may as well, for the purposes of our day to day use cases, use 
> their URLs as if they were Sem Web URIs. on these sites, the 
> distinction between resource and representation (concept and doc about

> concept) is not what's pertinent.
> i'm aware that most on this list will make a religious distinction 
> between:
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Madonna_%28entertainer%29
> and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer)
> but i think that, by convention, and in the contexts they'd actually 
> be used, we should treat them both as identifiers for the same 
> concept, and that they are essentially sameAs's *in common 
> practice"...

> in other words, as much as i love dbPedia and think it's a brilliant 
> step forward, i personally was fine with WIkipedia URLs as 
> identifiers. the incredible thing about dbpedia is the data mining to 
> extract RDF, not the URIs or content negotiation.
> i KNOW that, technically, what i'm saying breaks all our rules -- and 
> i followed 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-05-31/HttpRan
> ge-14.html closely -- but philosophically i think there's something to

> what i'm saying... if the Web is easy and the Sem Web hard, must we 
> insist on perfection? must we insist that imdb agree with us and 
> explicitly opt in?

Perhaps the Web was hard in the early days as well though, we've just
forgotten? I'm not sure the Semantic Web is hard; we've just got to be
clear about how we communicate it to people.

> practically, tho, in an "official" LOD grammar sense, this works just 
> fine for me:
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Madonna_%28entertainer%29
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Madonna_%28entertainer%29> > 
> foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000187/
> <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000187/> >
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Madonna_%28entertainer%29
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Madonna_%28entertainer%29> > 
> foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer> )
> that seems useful and easy. to me, that's allowing a "sameAs"-like 
> relationship between Web of Docs URLs and SemWeb URIs... i could 
> really really run with that approach...
> but now, to stir things up a bit...
> given the above, thus:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer> ) owl:sameAs 
> <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000187/
> <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000187/> >
> right? right?  ;-)

No way. No way at all :D



This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 14:55:23 UTC

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