- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:43:59 -0400
- 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>, dgottfrid@gmail.com
Chris Sizemore wrote: > good stuff, kingsley -- BTW i'm hoping to get some of the nytimes guys out to see you et al at: > > http://www.linkeddataplanet.com/index.php > > perhaps the main use case for large content-centric (as opposed to big *concept*-centric, if you follow the distinction?) orgs like the BBC and NYtimes is aggregating content across content owners/silos... > And so much more :-) It's this part of the picture that hasn't been articulated that well :-) How to the BBC, New York Times, and an other (dare I say) traditional media behemoths exploit the next Web frontier ? How do these organizations anticipate rather than react to the imminent Linked Data Web inflection? Is a Linked Data business model a mercurial oxymoron? These are the real questions :-) > identifiers and cross-domain equivalency relationships are the most pertinent problems to crack... > Yes, and there are solutions taking shape as I type :-) > sure, Google News, et al, do this already, but it could be so much better with linked data and sem web annotations... > Amen! > that's why i think we shouldn't be too precious about using Web-of-Docs imDB URIs, etc, to help us identify concepts/things... it's too valuable in terms of "tagging" content to ignore just because there's currently no RDF available... > > here's a presentation i contributed to which tries to explain some of this. clearly, we are implicitly refering to Linked Open Data in this presentation... > > > http://www.slideshare.net/guest2c797e/wikipedia-as-controlled-vocabulary > http://sells.welcomebackstage.com:5000/item/submit > http://ivanherman.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/wikipedia-uri-s-as-reliable-identifiers-for-the-semantic-web/ > > > do let me know what you make of it, if you have time to have a look... > I will have a look and certainly get back to you! Kingsley > > > best-- > > --cs > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com] > Sent: Sat 4/5/2008 2:26 PM > To: Chris Sizemore > Cc: public-lod@w3.org; Michael Smethurst; Silver Oliver; pepper@ontopia.net; Dan Brickley > Subject: Re: imdb as linked open data? > > 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 22:44:42 UTC