Re: Semantic Web pneumonia and the Linked Data flu (was: Can we lower the LD entry cost please (part 1)?)

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Georgi Kobilarov <georgi.kobilarov@gmx.de>wrote:

>  Wait a second. Publishing Linked Data from relational databases?
>
> D2R-Server, Virtuoso Relational Mappings? Juan, you should be familiar with
> that stuff…
>
> Of course... but even though. IMO, not easy enough! I'm taking the position
as owner of one of the million web applications out there, powered by a
rdbms, and now hearing about the LD thing going on. If I want to be part of
it... I would have to invest a lot of time and effort with existing tools
such as d2r sever, etc...

>
>
> Easy linking of data? Not quite solved yet. But wait for the Linked Data
> Workshop at WWW2009…
>
>
>
As I said, that is my futuristic position... and I am waiting for things to
happen!

> Georgi
>
>
>
> --
>
> Georgi Kobilarov
>
> Freie Universität Berlin
>
> www.georgikobilarov.com
>
>
>
> *From:* public-lod-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Juan Sequeda
> *Sent:* Monday, February 09, 2009 3:02 PM
> *To:* Hugh Glaser
> *Cc:* Yves Raimond; public-lod@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Semantic Web pneumonia and the Linked Data flu (was: Can we
> lower the LD entry cost please (part 1)?)
>
>
>
> This is a point I have always brought up... it is hard! It is hard to
> produce LD and hard to consume LD. No sane person will want to do maintain
> this. Yves just explained everything he goes through and it is wayyy to
> much! The majority of the data on the web is stored in rdbms. Therefore,
> IMO, it is crucial to develop automatic ways of creating RDF from relational
> data and linking it automatically. If this is not going to happen, the whole
> web that runs on rdbms, will not have an incentive to create LD. This is my
> futuristic position.
>
>
>
> Juan Sequeda, Ph.D Student
> Dept. of Computer Sciences
> The University of Texas at Austin
> www.juansequeda.com
> www.semanticwebaustin.org
>
>  On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> YES!
> Now I don't have to spend my time writing Part 2.
> (You did notice the (part 1) in the subject line?)
> I was wondering of anyone would ask me what was part 2.
> Well, this was it.
> Pretty exactly, and very nicely put.
> Many thanks.
>
> Despite what I have said about providing a search facility, I think we need
> to ensure it is easy to join the LD, and make medium-size-ish (or any)
> dataset publishers welcome, whatever the perceived paucity of missing
> facilities or components.
> Maybe I am thinking two opposite things at the same time? I hope not.
>
>
> On 09/02/2009 10:40, "Yves Raimond" <yves.raimond@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello!
>
> Just to jump on the last thread, something has been bugging me lately.
> Please don't take the following as a rant against technologies such as
> voiD, Semantic Sitemaps, etc., these are extremely useful piece of
> technologies - my rant is more about the order of our priorities, and
> about the growing cost (and I insist on the word "growing") of
> publishing linked data.
>
> There's a lot of things the community asks linked data publisher to do
> (semantic sitemaps, stats on the dataset homepages, example sparql
> queries, void description, and now search function), and I really tend
> to think this makes linked data publishing cost much, much more
> costly. Richard just mentioned that it should just take 5 minutes to
> write such a search function, but 5 minutes + 5 minutes + 5 minutes +
> ... takes a long time. Maintaining a linked dataset is already *lots*
> of work: server maintenance, dataset maintenance, minting of new
> links, keeping up-to-date with the data sources, it *really* takes a
> lot of time to do properly.
> Honestly, I begin to be quite frustrated, as a publisher of about 10
> medium-size-ish datasets. I really have the feeling the work I
> invested in them is never enough, every time there seems to be
> something missing to make all these datasets a "real" part of the
> linked data cloud.
>
> Now for the most tedious part of my rant :-) Most of the datasets
> published in the linked data world atm are using open source
> technologies (easy enough to send a patch over to the data publisher).
> Some of them provide SPARQL end points. What's missing for the
> advocate of new technologies or requirements to fulfill their goal
> themselves? After all, that's what we all did with this project since
> the beginning! If someone really wants a smallish search engine on top
> of some dataset, wrapping a SPARQL query, or a call to the web service
> that the dataset wraps should be enough. I don't see how the data
> publisher is required for achieving that aim. The same thing holds for
> voiD and other technologies. Detailed statistics are available on most
> dataset homepages, which (I think) provides enough data to write a
> good enough voiD description.
>
> To sum up, I am just increasingly concerned that we are building
> requirements on top of requirements for the sake of lowering a  "LD
> entry cost", whereas I have the feeling that this cost is really
> higher and higher... And all that doesn't make the data more linked
> :-)
>
> Cheers!
> y
>
>
>
>