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

Re: imdb as linked open data?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:25:24 -0400
Message-ID: <47FA4AF4.6040502@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:
>> identifiers and cross-domain equivalency relationships are the most pertinent problems to crack...
>>  
>>     
> "Yes, and there are solutions taking shape as I type :-)"
>
> sounds promising, could you tell us more, kingsley? 
At this juncture: Zitgist LLC <http://www.zitgist.com> :-)

We will be putting out some demonstrations very soon that highlight 
what's been covered in this series of posts by Mike Bergman:
http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=430



> will you be at: http://www.okkam.org/IRSW2008/  ?
>   
More than likely :-)
>
> "How do these (old media) organizations anticipate rather than react to the imminent Linked Data Web inflection?"
>
> well, i/we don't have the long term business model at all sorted, but i think the first step is making sure our content is "tagged up" with web-native URIs for what it's "about" (thus my imdb, wikipedia, musicbrainz trifecta), and then making sure that the content is made available to the greater Web as RDF under a creative commons-ish license... somewhat like the BBC Music reviews are now, but with more RDF...
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/release/n6gb/
>   

Sure!

Kingsley
>
>
> best--
>
> --cs
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com]
> Sent: Sat 4/5/2008 11:43 PM
> To: Chris Sizemore
> Cc: public-lod@w3.org; Michael Smethurst; Silver Oliver; pepper@ontopia.net; Dan Brickley; dgottfrid@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: imdb as linked open data?
>  
> 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 Monday, 7 April 2008 21:35:04 UTC

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