W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Proposal to assess the quality of Linked Data sources

From: Annika Flemming <annika.flemming@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:19:01 +0100
Message-ID: <4D682AD5.6000004@gmx.de>
To: public-lod@w3.org
CC: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
Hi Bob,

thanks for your comments!

Am 24.02.2011 20:47, schrieb Bob Ferris:
> Hi Annika,
>
> this is quite interesting. Well done!
>
> Here are my remarks:
>
> - "no redefinition of existing vocabularies" - sometimes it necessary 
> e.g., to achieve an OWL DL compiliance of an utilized vocabulary that 
> doesn't fulfil this requirement originally
Oh ok, I didn't know that, thanks!
>
> - any reason for being sometimes quite strict re. the selected 
> relations for specific indicators (e.g. 4.1) i.e., SIOC is for online 
> communities and hence rather specific for that domain
First, I wanted to leave things like the interpretation of an 
"established vocabulary" open to the reader. But as it is a diploma 
thesis, I was asked to make clear definitions for the indicators which 
wouldn't leave much room for interpretation.
>
> - "stating the content-types as specifically as possible" is quite 
> vague ;) and what are you intending with 'content-types'? media types?
Yes, media types, which are stated in an HTTP-answer in the 
"Content-Type"-header. I took this indicator from the Weaving the 
Pedantic Web paper, which includes the example of stating the 
Content-Type of an RDF/XML-document as 'application/xml', although the 
actual type would be  'application/rdf+xml'.
>
> - "A vocabulary is said to be established, if it is one of the 100 
> most popular vocabularies stated on prex.cc" - uhm, as the results 
> from Richard's evaluation have, this is quite arguable
It's a practical way to determine it (which I can use for the 
implementation of the formalism). Another way would be to compare many 
documents from many data sources and to find out, which vocabularies are 
most popular.
>
> - re. rdfs:label/rdfs:comment vs. dc:title/dc:description, AFAIK, it 
> is a common practice to use the former one for universal definitions 
> and the latter one for particular definitions
I must admit, I forgot about these two. I'll add them!
>
> That's all for the moment ;)
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Bob
Thanks again!
Cheers,
Annika
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 22:19:19 UTC

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