W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > August 2009

Re: AW: [Dbpedia-discussion] Fwd: Your message to Dbpedia-discussion awaits moderator approval

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:28:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4A81FEA5.9020602@openlinksw.com>
To: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Kavitha Srinivas <ksrinivs@gmail.com>, Tim Finin <finin@cs.umbc.edu>, Anja Jentzsch <anja@anjeve.de>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, "dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net" <dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>
Hugh Glaser wrote:
> On 11/08/2009 15:47, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>
>   
>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:45 AM, Chris Bizer wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Hi Kingsley, Pat and all,
>>>
>>>       
> <snip/>
>   
>>> Everything on the Web is a claim by somebody. There are no facts,
>>> there is
>>> no truth, there are only opinions.
>>>       
>> Same is true of the Web and of life in general, but still there are
>> laws about slander, etc.; and outrageous falsehoods are rebutted or
>> corrected (eg look at how Wikipedia is managed); or else their source
>> is widely treated as nonsensical, which I hardly think DBpedia wishes
>> to be. And also, I think we do have some greater responsibility to
>> give our poor dumb inference engines a helping hand, since they have
>> no common sense to help them sort out the wheat from the chaff, unlike
>> our enlightened human selves.
>>
>>     
>>> Semantic Web applications must take this into account and therefore
>>> always
>>> assess data quality and trustworthiness before they do something
>>> with the
>>> data.
>>>       
> I think that this discussion really emphasises how bad it is to put this
> co-ref data in the same store as the other data.
>   
Yes, they should be in distinct Named Graphs.

This is the point I was making a while back (in relation to Alan's 
comments about the same thing).
> Finding data in dbpedia that is mistaken/wrong/debateable undermines the
> whole project - the contract dbpedia offers is to reflect the wikipedia
> content that it offers.
>   
Er. its prime contract is a Name Corpus. In due course there will be 
lots of meshes from other domains Linked Data contributors e.g. BBC, 
Reuters, New York Times etc..

The goal of DBpedia was to set the ball rolling and in that regard its 
over achieved (albeit from my very biased view point).


Perfection is not an option on the Web or in the real world. We exist in 
a continuum that is inherently buggy, by design (otherwise it would be 
very boring).

> And it isn't really sensible/possible to distinguish the extra sameas from
> the "real" sameas.
> Eg http://dbpedia.org/resource/London and
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Leondeon
>
> And on the other hand, freebase is now in danger of being undermined by this
> as well.
>
> As time goes by, the more I think this is going wrong.
>   

I think the complete opposite.

We just need the traditional media players to comprehend that: Data is 
like Wine and Code is like Fish. Once understood, they will realize that 
the Web has simply introduced a "medium of value exchange" inflection 
i.e., the HTTP URI as opposed to URL (which replicates paper). Note, 
every media company is high quality Linked Data Space curator in 
disguise, they just need to understand what the Web really offers :-)


> Best
> Hugh
> <truncate/>
>
>
>   


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 23:29:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:22 UTC