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

Re: imdb as linked open data?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:28:08 -0400
Message-ID: <47F64908.1020606@openlinksw.com>
To: Chris Sizemore <Chris.Sizemore@bbc.co.uk>
CC: Tom Heath <Tom.Heath@talis.com>, public-lod@w3.org, Michael Smethurst <Michael.Smethurst@bbc.co.uk>, Silver Oliver <Silver.Oliver@bbc.co.uk>, pepper@ontopia.net, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>

Chris Sizemore wrote:
> "I'm not sure the Semantic Web is hard; we've just got to be clear about
> how we communicate it to people."
>
> agreed!
>   
Correct, this is why I start with: Linked Data Web or Web or Linked Data :-)

Kingsley
>
> --cs
>
>  
>
> -----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:
> <http://simile.mit.edu/mail/ReadMsg?listId=14&msgId=15205>
>
>   
>> 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"...
>>     
>
> Hmmm...
>   
>   
>> 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
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
> 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.
> 					
>
>
>   


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 15:28:49 UTC

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