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

Re: Visualizing LOD Linkage

From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:17:39 +0100
Message-ID: <82593ac00808020917s162e2c97jeeb648a820165c58@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Oktie Hassanzadeh" <oktie@cs.toronto.edu>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org

Hello!

>
> I totally agree! Some interlinks are not as valuable as others. That's why
> we report the number of links based on their type and target and also we
> store and publish data about the linkage methodology. I also believe we
> should be honest about the value of the interlinks.
>
> Apart from the links to languages and geographic locations, another example
> of such "easy" links is the links we have in LinkedMDB to the Authors of
> books in RDF Book Mashup which is done only based on the name of the
> authors, comparing with the links to the books related to the movies for
> which we have to match the titles and find the ISBN of the books. I just
> changed LinkedMDB's statistics [1] to show two different numbers for these
> links.
>
> Regarding languages, I was not sure which is the right way, to link directly
> yo lingvoj or to have our own entities for languages, but after reading some
> discussions like [1], we decided to link directly to lingvoj.
>

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that we should use sameAs all the time to
interlink datasets (far from that!) - just that such a
"transformation" could be the basis of a more unified way of counting
interlinks. I think it is perfectly fine in LinkedMDB as it is.

Also, I think LinkedMDB's statistics are really good and far more
detailed than for most of the current LOD datasets! I was just
wondering if we should have a single way of measuring interlinkage
(and what should this measure be) if we want to be able to interpret
these statistics unambiguously.

Cheers!
y
Received on Saturday, 2 August 2008 16:18:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:17 UTC