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

Re: imdb as linked open data?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:26:25 -0400
Message-ID: <47F77E01.2090606@openlinksw.com>
To: Chris Sizemore <Chris.Sizemore@bbc.co.uk>
CC: 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:
> hmmm, kingsley, I'm not sure those labels are clear, actually... I think
> I understand the distinctions, but...
>   

Chris,

I am saying that we communicate the essence of the matter (at the 
current time): Linked Data Web as an adjunct to the current Document 
Web,  rather than lose our emerging audience -- a frequent occurrence 
when using the broader term:  "Semantic Web" :-)

I think this issue of description and language certainly needs 
collaborative work via a Wiki article etc..

I am more or less done with the LOD Wiki Space 
<http://community.linkeddata.org/MediaWiki>. Which can act an area for 
us to finesse some of our descriptions and language.

The setup is explained at: 
http://community.linkeddata.org/MediaWiki/index.php?VirtuosoWiki:About


Kingsley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com] 
> Sent: 04 April 2008 16:28
> To: Chris Sizemore
> Cc: Tom Heath; public-lod@w3.org; Michael Smethurst; Silver Oliver;
> pepper@ontopia.net; Dan Brickley
> Subject: Re: imdb as linked open data?
>
> 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 Saturday, 5 April 2008 13:29:31 UTC

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