W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2010

Re: UK Govt RDF Data Sets

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:19:47 +0200
Message-ID: <i2leb19f3361004251219rc0576b54j3cadeae0de61e95@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> Jeni Tennison wrote:
>>
>> Kingsley,
>>
>> On 15 Apr 2010, at 23:19, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you have any idea as to the whereabouts of RDF data sets for the
>>> SPARQL endpoints associated with data.gov.uk?
[...]
> One thing I haven't been able to reconcile (in my head repeatedly) re. the
> above.
>
> If data provenance is the key concern behind the RDF dump releases, doesn't
> the same issue apply to CONSTRUCTs or DESCRIBE style crawls against the
> published endpoints? Basically, the very pattern exhibited by some user
> agents that hit the DBpedia endpoint (as per the "DBpedia Endpoint Burden"
> post).
>hes
> What makes a SPARQL endpoint safer than an RDF dump in this regard?

For what it's worth, I've encountered very similar attitudes over the
years in other environments. A good example is the digital library
world; both regarding access to digital collections and online access
to OPAC data, it was quite common to see Z39.50 search protocol access
to the full collection, but accompanied by a rather cautious
reluctance to also offer a simple data dump of the entire thing.
Pointing out that you could do this via repeated Z39.50 searches was
rarely helpful, and seemed more likely to encourage the search
interface to be restricted than for data dumps to be made available.
But hey, times are changing! I think it's just a matter of time...

cheers,

Dan
Received on Sunday, 25 April 2010 19:20:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:26 UTC