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

Re: Inclusion of additional (non dereferencable) data?

From: Haijie.Peng <haijie.peng@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:43:51 +0800
Message-ID: <4C1178B7.1070502@gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
于 2010/6/10 23:24, Nathan 写道:
> All,
> Here's a common example of what I'm referring to, suppose we have a 
> (foaf) document http://ex.org/bobsmith which includes the following 
> triples:
> :me foaf:knows <http://example.org/joe_bloggs#me> .
> <http://example.org/joe_bloggs#me> a foaf:Person ;
> foaf:name "Joe Bloggs"@en .
> In Linked Data terms one could suggest that the description of Joe 
> Bloggs doesn't 'belong' in this document (although clearly it can be 
> here).
> I can quite easily see how trend came about, there are benefits, it's 
> both an optimisation method (saves dereferencing) and it's an 
> inclusion of human presentable information (which aids display / 
> comprehension in 'foaf viewers').
you are right.
> However, there are drawbacks too, the data could easily go out of date 
> / out of sync, it's not dereferencable (the adverse effects in this 
> example aren't specifically clear, but in other use-cases they are 
> considerable).
we can use search engine to help us find it.
> Over and above these simple thoughts, I'm quite sure that there are 
> bigger architectural and best practise considerations (for a web of 
> data), for example:
> - does this create an environment where we are encouraged not to 
> deference linked data (or where it is common to look local first)
I don't understand this a little bit. Maybe you mean dereference the 
content of linked data?
> - does this point to bigger issues such as not having a single global 
> predicate for a default human presentable 'name' for all things that 
> can be 'named' (given a URI) - even though many candidates are available.
In fact, you even do not have to name things, we can use other 
uniqueness to name a thing. such as position/location.
> - should 'reading ahead' (dereferencing all linked data before 
> presentation to a user / trying to glean an understanding) be 
> encouraged over providing a limited local subset of the data which 
> could easily be inaccurate or out of date.
> - is there an gut instinct in the community that most data will 
> ultimately end up being presented to a human somewhere along the line, 
> and this is driving us to make such design decisions.
> Any thoughts or strong feelings on the issue(s)? and is anybody aware 
> of whether this practise came about more by accident than by design?
Thinking on this would let us see a very different scene of the web of data.


> Best,
> Nathan
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 23:44:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:06 UTC