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 18:43:59 -0400
Message-ID: <47F800AF.8000109@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>, 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

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