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

Hi Kingsley.

On 12/08/2009 00:28, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> 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.
I thought you would mention Named Graphs :-)
> 
> This is the point I was making a while back (in relation to Alan's
> comments about the same thing).
Yes, but this is the point I was making a while back about Named Graphs as a
solution - when I resolve a URI (follow-my-nose) in the recommended fashion,
I see no Named Graphs - they are only exposed in SPARQL stores.
If I resolve http://dbpedia.org/resource/London to get
http://dbpedia.org/data/London.rdf I see a bunch of RDF - go on, try it. No
sight of Named Graphs.
Are you saying that the only way to access Linked Data is via SPARQL?
>> 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..
I really don't think so.
Its prime contract is that I can resolve a URI for a NIR and get back things
like Description, Location, etc..
If it gives me dodgy other stuff that I can't distinguish, I will have to
stop using it, which would be a disaster.
> 
> The goal of DBpedia was to set the ball rolling and in that regard its
> over achieved (albeit from my very biased view point).
Oh yes! - but let's not let it get spoilt.
> 
> 
> 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).
When we engineer things we accept all that - but what we then do is engineer
systems so that they are robust to the imperfections.
> 
>> 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
Sorry, I was wrong about these two being sameAs - they are dbpprop:redirect,
although I don't think that it changes the story.
Actually, in fact dbpprop:redirect may be a sub-property of owl:sameAs for
all I know.
(I think the URIs for http://dbpedia.org/property/ and
http://dbpedia.org/ontology/ need fixing :-) )
I had inferred they were sameAs, since they sameAs yago or fbase stuff,
which then get sameAs elsewhere.

>> 
>> 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 :-)
By "this", I meant putting the co-reffing (sameAs) links in the RDF that is
returned with the data about the NIR when a URI is resolved.
> 
> 
>> Best
>> Hugh
>> <truncate/>
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Regards,
Cheers
Hugh
> 
> Kingsley Idehen       Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> President & CEO
> OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 00:06:35 UTC