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

Re: Using Linking Open Data datasets

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:39:31 +1000
Message-ID: <a1be7e0e0805291739o495da29fxbd6cc6625cce5dec@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Giovanni Tummarello" <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Cc: "Hugh Glaser" <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>

Does sindice utilise the SPARQL related pieces in anyway for internal
processing? Does it understand or replicate the slicing mode?


If my understanding is correct, this is aimed at a search engine
mostly... so it should publish this information when it finds it in a
directory of sorts to be most useful. Does sindice republish this
information in some form to allow directory based access to the
different linked data endpoints/sites?



2008/5/30 Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>:
> A validator in sindice is possible and has been discussed but the list
> of things to do is now quite scary :-)
> poor man validator: plese post us about yout sitemap here
> http://forum.sindice.com/index.php . Free report and quick indexing to
> those who do.
> Giovanni
>> Mind you, Giovanni says that a lot of sitemaps are broken, so they fix them
>> and cache the fixed ones for Sindice purposes :-)
>> On 30/05/2008 00:02, "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Richard
>>>> [1] http://sw.deri.org/2007/07/sitemapextension/
>>> That looks very usable to me. Has anyone used it for linked data? How
>>> do you discover these sitemaps as a linked data user, as opposed to
>>> sitemaps which are traditionally submitted to search engines for
>>> searching. In either case, it would be nice to have an RDF description
>>> submitted as part of a sitemap to a semantic search engine so it might
>>> be good to standardise that mechanism based around these ideas.
>>> Also, there is a reference in that document to N-Quad format, what is
>>> that exactly? [2] is a bit sparse on examples so it is hard to
>>> understand what is meant by the syntax.
>>> Also, is the slicing declaration attempting to make up for a deficit
>>> in the SPARQL protocol w.r.t. DESCRIBE? Why not utilise SELECT if you
>>> had an idea of what pieces of information you desire, although I guess
>>> the server is in the best position to recommend information to you
>>> with DESCRIBE queries. I think slicing mechanisms should be defined
>>> outside of that context, although the lack of progress with CBD [3] is
>>> a little worrying with respect to that bit.
>>> [2] http://sw.deri.org/2008/02/nx/
>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/Submission/CBD/
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
Received on Friday, 30 May 2008 00:40:07 UTC

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