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

Re: [Linking-open-data] watchdog.net and LOD best practices

From: Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:31:01 -0400
Message-id: <48075F25.3070102@fgiasson.com>
To: Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

Hi Matthias,

>> But this is just philosophical.... In reality, in my daily working 
>> life.... I refers to objects that have properties. I don't care if 
>> one name it an infroamtion resource, a web document, a Thing, etc. 
>> What I check is: is this URI in one of my triple store? No? Then can 
>> I resolve this URI on the web? yes? Is there RDF? Yes? Is this RDF 
>> describing this URI? yes? then lets do something with it!
> In scenarios where you have the time to look at each resource and make 
> manual/mental disambiguations, this might work. This strategy does not 
> work very well for large-scale information integration, though. When 
> we want to be able to write queries, mappings and make inferences 
> spanning over large heterogeneous information resources, we cannot 
> afford to spend too much time for such disambiguations on a 
> case-by-case basis.

No, here I am referring to: is this URI representing something, or *is* 
the thing. Anyway, as I said, I don't think we *ever* refers to the 
actual "thing".

What I say is: the Web is just a mean to get the RDF description of 
resource identified by an URI. But it is not because the URI is not 
resolvable on the Web that no information exists for that URI.

My comment has nothing to do with the effectiveness of integrating large 
scale data sources. But only about the meaning we give to an URI we use 
to refers to a rdf resource :) (and its relation to the Web).

Take care,

Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 14:32:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:49 UTC