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

Re: The king is dressed in void

From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:41:46 +0100
Message-ID: <210271540806121641q4b507e07o6ca0ee87b02a8209@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>

Hi Michael,

let me clarify that it wasnt really meant to be "to: michael" you were
just there when i replied to the general idea and not you in
particular :-)

> step after semantic sitemaps (it actually is thought to extend it in
> terms of using the sc:datasetURI as the entry point, see also [1]). So,
> just in case you want to argument against your own proposal, please tell
> me so ;)

Semantic sitemaps are important becouse there is no way from the
outside to distinguis a LOD split dataset into a million of
independant RDF files. This is seriously problematic as it destroys
much of the notion of context of the information itself.
If simple extentions can be done there, why not.. e.g. the licence
thing is certainly very easy to add and i see no counterindications.

>  1. automatic creation of a map (such as http://sindice.com/map)

My observations come in particular from that map. That map is going to
be created automatically and we have seen no reasons why why cant do
it with some queries.  If these reasons arise i'll be very happy to
make them public for discussion.

>  2. topic-based selection of LOD datasets
> Today we have a bunch of LOD data sets or other sources -  tomorrow we
> may have 10k and next year maybe a million. Next, when looking at (2),

Yes.. if fact if you to look for e.g. career interests (as my example
yesterday) you see already dozens or hundeds of sites.

What i am saying is that i dont find realistic that they would all
have to have a semantic sitemap and all have to look at the new
proposed standard ontology for dataset description and , let me guess,
write RDF/XML by hand (20 minutes per triple)  to say "hey i have
careers here" ..

Of course there are datasets which will not be that self explanatory
and for particualar reasons it might be needed to describe them. But
lets make sure if we do a standard now that these special use cases
are clear and objectively worth the effort and the extra complication.

just becouse these are extra options, and one could ignore them, they
do add to  the noise and ultimately if they're not really needed they
can easily end up hurting the common effort since too much stuff (and
its too much stuff already) scares people off from semantic web.

These are my final observations on this matter (then i am out :-)
promised).. but as i said if i ever encounter myself the need for such
a thing i'll share the use cases and similarly if such a thing comes
to life and can add interesting features, we're pretty quick to
implement support for it.

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 23:42:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:50 UTC