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

RE: Using Linking Open Data datasets

From: Tom Heath <Tom.Heath@talis.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 16:47:30 +0100
Message-ID: <DD5E887552496241BC701548837A282F06D8208D@nemo.talis.local>
To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>, <public-lod@w3.org>

Hi Michael,

I think there's definitely much scope for improvements in this area, so
would greatly welcome any developments. Will have a look shortly at your
wiki page and try to comment further.

As well as UMBEL, I would guess that Richard's Semantic Sitemap work (to
be presented at ESWC, IIRC!) is nearby, as is generic work on service
description (of which I'm horrible unfamiliar) and the work on SW
indices/gateways such as Watson and Sindice. Looking forward to hearing
how this goes.

On a different note, that triple in the sign for the Gathering on Sunday
is not compliant with the httpRange-14 finding. Tut tut ;D

See you Sunday at 5pm :)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lod-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hausenblas, Michael
> Sent: 28 May 2008 15:52
> To: public-lod@w3.org
> Subject: Using Linking Open Data datasets 
> 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 vocabulary and gather 
> information 'about' the LOD datasets, such as 'at Geonames 
> you get location-based information', etc.
> 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 efficiently 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 interest.
> 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]
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/Li
> nkingOpenD
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 15:49:16 UTC

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