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

Re: LDOW2009 Workshop now publishing Linked Data (was Re: Linked Data on the Web (LDOW2009) workshop papers online.)

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:50:16 -0400
Message-ID: <49C3AD28.2090409@openlinksw.com>
To: Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>
CC: Knud Hinnerk Möller <knud.moeller@deri.org>, giovanni.tummarello@deri.org, Tom Heath <Tom.Heath@talis.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Daniel Schwabe wrote:
> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> ...
>>> - a stable service with a long-range commitment (as Daniel already 
>>> said)
>> Yes, but is that worth the dislocation of the domain component of the 
>> HTTP identifier pointing back to me?
> Sorry but I'm really confused here. I don't see how this applies to 
> the scenario where there is NO place where one can reliably publish 
> the data in a "permanent" form.
> I can understand the scenario where I publish data using my own URIs, 
> and do a owl:sameas to Dogfood server URIs when applicable, but if I 
> can't guarantee a permanent service this doesn't help in the long run.
> If you are referring to the scenario where one does offer this 
> permanent publishing through one's own server, then it doesn't matter 
> if it's on the Dogfood server or not.
>
> Can  you give me an example of a scenario of what you mean?
>
> Cheers
> D
>
>
>
Daniel,

When you say: "No place where one can reliabley publish the data in 
permanent form", do you mean that this data exists off the Web then? If 
so, then certainly there is a subtle disconnect as I am referring to 
data that is on the Web but not in RDF form, or may be in RDF form but 
not endowed with de-referencable URIs.

Otherwise:

Musicbrainz is an example, they have URIs but don't currently serve up 
RDF (they used to in the past). Thus, we processed their PostgreSQL 
hosted data, produced RDF Linked Data but still point back to their URIs 
even though as of today they don't resolve.

My key point is that the Dog-food server is performing RDFization (in 
some form) and in doing so it shouldn't mandate that the externally 
sourced data have URIs minted using its namespace.

If on the other hand you are going out and grabbing the data e.g., via 
some 3rd party API or Feed, the practice should still be to attribute to 
original data provider by exposing their namespace in the URIs you mint, 
our add some attribution triples.

Generally, my comments here about best practice that we should 
emphasize, and I am hoping my point by point response to Knud clarifies 
my concerns about the justification he was making.  As stated, my point 
doesn't differ from Giovanni's.

Broader examples of what I am stating here are demonstrated via the 
proxy-URIs that we've always contructed in the Sponger Cartridges that 
our Sponger Middleware exposes.

-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 14:51:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:20 UTC