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

Semantic Web Search

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:09:49 +0100
To: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C48453FD.25648%hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

Just how good are the Search services - are they as good as they claim?

I've been worrying about this for quite a while now, running round the
engines I know about, submitting URIs, etc.. I usually get assured that
things will be really good soon, but I'm not sure how much things are
improving. Of course some are better than others, but every now and then I
see documents that do analysis of the Semantic Web that appear to be based
on the need to find RDF documents.
Here is an example (taken from the stuff we publish, of course - sorry, but
the other dblp links are not much better).


This is a URI that is available off a web page
( http://dblp.rkbexplorer.com/ ), and from
owl:sameAs), that is an entry to 18946779 triples and 5725785 symbols.
None of it has changed for a few months.

It seems to me that a Linked Data site of this sort should be quite obvious
to people querying search engines, and that something must be wrong if it is
Even more worrying I find, is that if I know of 50+ million triples lying
around in Linked Data sites built from a few thousand rdf files, what else
is out there?

Sorry if this sounds a little negative, but it is because I think that being
able to find things is so important that I ask the question, and the related
Am I doing something wrong?
Do we (Linked Data) need to something else (apart from sitemap, void, etc.)?
In fact, what are the claims?

I would be delighted to find I am getting this all wrong, and driving the
engines wrong, or missing some of them or...

Received on Sunday, 22 June 2008 18:10:42 UTC

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