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

Hi Kingsley.

On 12/08/2009 20:07, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> Peter Ansell wrote:
>> 2009/8/12 Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>:
>>  
>>> Are you saying that the only way to access Linked Data is via SPARQL?
>>>    
>> 
>> That is going a bit far, but in the end if you want to allow people to
>> extend the model it has to be done using SPARQL. If the extension is
>> taken well by users then it could be included in what is resolved for
>> the URI but that doesn't mean it is not Linked Data up until the point
>> it is included.
>> 
>> I for one loved the recent addition of the Page Links set in a
>> separate Named Graph, and I don't see how this is different.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> 
>>  
> Amen!  :-)
> 
> Hugh: the important point is this: the person that deems a piece of data
> to be fit for sharing on the Web can mint a  HTTP URIs for said data,
> even it this happens from afar e.g. via Pubby or Virtuoso's Linked Data
> Deployment services against remote SPARQL endpoints. Of course, the same
> thing can happen via RDFizers that produce proxy/wrapper URIs from a
> variety of data sources. None of this breaks the principles behind  the
> Linked Data meme :-)
I agree with all that - it is a description of what I have been saying.
We clearly have a strong agreement here.

On the other hand:
Thus SPARQL is not a required part of the Linked Data meme. Also if Named
Graphs are not visible without using SPARQL, Named Graphs are not a good
solution to problems in the Linked Data meme.

This will become a more significant issue with the forthcoming explosion of
Linked Data from governments such as the UK, where the data provider will
not be offering a SPARQL endpoint.

Telling them to put their co-ref data in a Named Graph is just not an
option.

Best
Hugh