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

Re: Visualizing LOD Linkage

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:05:24 +0100
Cc: "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Message-Id: <5715C4A6-E502-48D1-98EF-699E7EB7AB90@cyganiak.de>
To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>


Is this really a problem? Why not just keep in mind that triple  
numbers are a purely mechanical measure and are no indication of  
quality or usefulness?

A raw triple count is just that, a raw triple count. It doesn't mean  
anything else. And it is useful for anyone who wants to store/index/ 
postprocess a dataset/linkset, because for storage and querying the  
number of triples matters.

I don't know of a good way to measure the quality or usefulness of a  
dataset, and would like to simply claim that it cannot be easily  
expressed in a number.


On 2 Aug 2008, at 16:23, Yves Raimond wrote:
>> The same applies for geographic locations, for example. Some datasets
>> use foaf:based_near to link to Geonames, some others create their own
>> identifiers, and then link to the corresponding Geonames locations
>> through owl:sameAs. For the same dataset, this two methodologies will
>> lead to completely different numbers.
> Just a small toy example of that - if I consider the following  
> dataset:
> @prefix : <http://my-dataset/>.
> @prefix geo : <http://geographic-dataset/>.
> :item1 foaf:based_near geo:location1.
> :item2 foaf:based_near geo:location1.
> 100% of the dataset correspond to links to another dataset.
> Now, if I consider
> :item1 foaf:based_near :location1.
> :item2 foaf:based_near :location1.
> :location1 owl:sameAs geo:location1.
> , which is equivalent to the previous dataset, this number drops to  
> 33%
> Cheers!
> y
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 11:06:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:52 UTC