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

Re: AW: ANN: LOD Cloud - Statistics and compliance with best practices

From: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:45:18 +0100
Message-Id: <p06240800c8e66d1f24e8@[]>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Thomas Steiner <tsteiner@google.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>, Anja Jentzsch <anja@anjeve.de>, semanticweb <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Mathieu d'Aquin <m.daquin@open.ac.uk>
At 15:45 -0400 21/10/10, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>On 10/21/10 3:23 PM, Enrico Motta wrote:
>>I strongly agree with the points made by Martin and Giovanni.  Of 
>>course the LOD initiative has had a lot of positive impact and you 
>>cannot be blamed for being successful, but at the some time I am 
>>worried that teh success and visibility of the LOD cloud is having 
>>some rather serious negative consequences. Specifically:
>>1) lots of people, even within the SW community, now routinely 
>>describe the LOD as the 'semantic web'.  This is not only 
>>dramatically incorrect (and bad for students and people who want to 
>>know about the SW) but also an obstacle to progress: anything which 
>>is not in the LOD diagram does not exist, and this is really not 
>>good for the SW community as a whole (including the people at the 
>>centre of the LOD initiative).  Even worse, in the past 12-18 
>>months  I have noticed that this viewpoint has also been embraced 
>>by funding bodies and linking to LOD is becoming a necessary 
>>condition for a SW project. Again, I think this is undesirable - 
>>see also Martin's email on this thread.
>I agree, but do note (as per my earlier response) the success of the 
>LOD cloud pictorial as marketing collateral isn't something that 
>arisen by deliberate exclusion actions. Methinks many have simply 
>slapped it into their presentations devoid of actual presentation 
>goals. This single activity has helped and hurt the LOD cloud 
>pictorial. Hurt meaning: creating the perception you describe above.

Absolutely! I never said (and I would never say) that there was any 
deliberate exclusion. I am just pointing out that this is a negative 
side-effect of the success of the activity.

>>2) Because the LOD is perceived as the 'official SW' and because 
>>resources in the LOD have to comply with a number of guidelines, 
>>people also assume that LOD resources exhibit higher quality.
>I hope not, and I don't think so. Even if it were to be true, would 
>you blame the production of the pictorial for that? Really though, I 
>don't recall anyone saying: LOD pictorial is the Linked Data gospel.

Again, there is no blaming involved. I am just saying that because 
there is a methodology associated with LOD and methodologies are 
normally associated with quality, people assume quality when quality 
is not (necessarily) there.

>>Unfortunately in our experience this is not really the case, and 
>>this also generates negative consequences. That is, if LOD is the 
>>'official high quality SW ' and there are so many issues with the 
>>data, automatically people assume that the rest of the SW is a lot 
>>worse, even though this is not necessarily the case.
>>So, as other people have already said, maybe it is time to 
>>re-examine teh design criteria for LOD and the way this is 
>But this should simple be a case of people from the community 
>producing additional collateral. The LOD cloud has some interesting 
>history that goes something like this:
>1. Banff 2007 (Linked Data coming out party)  -- Chris was giving a 
>DBpedia demo showing its inter-connectedness, TimBL then suggest to 
>Chris to turn it into a cloud with periodic updates for 
>demonstrating growth
>2. Richard (working with Chris at the time) picked up the challenge 
>and refined the initial graphic
>3. People started using it to show growth of DBpedia which also 
>implied LOD cloud since the connections in the pictorial were 
>4. Cloud pictorial caught fire re. powerpoint presentations + 
>exponential effect of slideshare.
>Thus, why can others simply emulate this process, based on 
>respective areas of interest?

Of course, they can.

>>For instance, it would be beneficial to the community if LOD were 
>>to focus more on quality issues, rather than linking for the sake 
>>of linking.
>Who is this LOD entity? You make this entity sound very much like 
>the one represented as a burning-bush when providing instructions 
>Moses :-)

Uhm...I know you are saying this in a jokey way, but I don't think I 
am trying to characterise it as a burning bush.....And, unless we are 
all dreaming, I would argue that a LOD initiative does exist......

>>>I agree with you that it would be much better, if somebody would set up a
>>>crawler, properly crawl the Web of Data and then provide a catalog about all
>>Actually this is exactly what our Watson system does, see 
>And I would assume there are APIs or even a SPARQL endpoint that 
>would enable interested parties generate a dynamic cloud, right?

Of course, there is SPARQL and a very fine-grained and efficient API. 
In addition, we are working on automatically generating a variety of 
links between semantic resources, e.g., agreement/disagreement, 
versioning, inclusion, inconsistency, etc.... - see 
for an overview of the overall framework and 
for an example of the approach, which focuses on characterizing and 
automatically detecting agreement and disagreement between ontologies.




The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an 
exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in 
Scotland (SC 038302).
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2010 22:46:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:09 UTC