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

Re: New LOD Cloud - Please send us links to missing data sources

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 01:22:21 +0000
To: "giovanni.tummarello@deri.org" <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: Joshua Tauberer <jt@occams.info>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C5CF93CD.29CC7%hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
I take you point, Giovanni, but I have to say it:
uses a good 30 different bubbles on the (new) diagram, without collecting them into a single store, and using the URI linkage.
>From the LOD publicity point of view, it is unfortunate that you can't tell (I hope).
But that was one of the objectives:- a user of LOD should be able to be blissfully unaware that they are using LOD.

On 01/03/2009 00:30, "Giovanni Tummarello" <g.tummarello@gmail.com> wrote:

congrats and kudos to all those who've made this happen. I think the cloud diagrams are proving a very compelling visual for people who don't care about nerdy detail but understand the idea of interlinked datasets.

Yes they're great for handwaving if the audience has never seen it, otherwise its likely counterproductive

The problem is that LOD has been stuck here 2 years really now, not a single advance not a single application (of the LOD model, not of the data, the data is obviously useful and expressing in RDF is also starting to be seen as useful) .

That the bubbles continue to grown is however a sociological interesting phenomen :-)

On the positive side,  i recently reviewed some work by someone who has a very interesting way to create a diagram which actually helps by showing which queries can be asked.  Too bad you wont see it in action at ESWC because the demo paper was  "not up to the springer standards for legibility", according to some other reviewer.

Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 01:23:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:55 UTC