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

RE: Using Linking Open Data datasets

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:40:07 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D29852016BEA88@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Michael K. Bergman" <mike@mkbergman.com>
Cc: <public-lod@w3.org>


Thanks for this feedback! As you know I'm aware of UMBEL, but have to
admit I was not aware of the fact that it might be the key to the
solution. I guess I should do my homework more properly ;)

I'm happy that it seems I'm not the only one contemplating about this
issue. However, I'd appreciate thoughts from others as well. There might
be a simpler solution to the problem which I just do not happen to see.

Anyways, the topic - using LOD datasets in applications - might be of
interest for our upcoming LOD gathering.


 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael K. Bergman [mailto:mike@mkbergman.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 5:20 PM
>To: Hausenblas, Michael
>Cc: public-lod@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Using Linking Open Data datasets
>Hi Michael,
>Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
>> Dear LODers,
>> One thing we encounter recurrently when using the LOD 
>datasets is where
>> to 'start best'. I'm unsure how to handle this situation, so 
>I tried to
>> gather some issues along with a simple proposal how to deal with it
>> (called MetaLOD) at [1]. The idea basically is to develop a 
>> and gather information 'about' the LOD datasets, such as 'at Geonames
>> you get location-based information', etc.
>This is the basic purpose of UMBEL. :)  (See the isAbout predicate.)
>btw, we have not posted this stuff yet because it is still under 
>review, but updated descriptions for UMBEL may be found at: 
>We are happy to share this early with the LOD list.  We hope to 
>release everything very soon -- in the next week or two depending 
>on some final Cyc review.
>Thanks, Mike
>> I'm aware of the fact that each LOD dataset *should* provide 
>this kind
>> of information about itself, however (i) not all do AFAIK, 
>and (ii) even
>> if all did, how can an application determine effectively and 
>> which LOD dataset might be good to use for a certain task? I 
>don't want
>> to propose a 'centrally controlled registry' with this idea, 
>just a way
>> to flag what to expect from a LOD dataset as a kind of jump start. 
>> A formal description of the LOD dataset would also be beneficial for
>> other exploration purposes, I guess. For example we could 
>express access
>> options for a LOD dataset (dump, SPARQL endpoint, etc.) or QoS
>> information, even trust issues or (user) ratings might be of 
>> Any thoughts?
>> While I'm here: In case you're around at ESWC08, come and 
>join us at the
>> LOD gathering [2]
>> Cheers,
>> 	Michael
>> [1] http://community.linkeddata.org/MediaWiki/index.php?MetaLOD
>> [2]
>> ata/TenerifeGathering
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>  Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>>  Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>>  JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>>  Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
>>  <office>
>>    phone: +43-316-876-1193 (fax:-1191)   
>>   mobile: +43-699-1876-1165
>>   e-mail: michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at
>>    skype: mhausenblas
>>      web: http://www.joanneum.at/iis/ 
>>  <see also>
>>           http://sw-app.org/about.html 
>>           http://riese.joanneum.at
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>Michael K. Bergman
>CEO  Zitgist LLC
>http://zitgist.com  http://mkbergman.com
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 15:43:55 UTC

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