W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2011

Re: please help define Web of Data

From: Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:57:41 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTimuBSLjD1HFVCvdWpOgqBja6-jixQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Cc: Semantic Web at W3C <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Gio,

On 20 April 2011 16:32, Giovanni Tummarello
<giovanni.tummarello@deri.org> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> these basic terminology and definitions are used by so many in our
> community in  dozens of articles, books, interviews.
>
> As a community, credibility is obviously important. Loosing
> credibility hurts all those connected.  So, no, i dont think
> discussing and clarifying a bit the terminology and clarifying can be
> a waste of our time
>
> The question was simple, is the Web of Data equivalent to LOD or not?

That's a bit like saying "is the sand equivalent to the beach or
not?", and I won't answer yes or no to a poorly formulated question :)

My comments about plurality of definitions aside, we do need to be
careful in how we use the term "LOD". Not all Linked Data is open [1],
and not all Open Data is linked. Only those data sets that are
published as Linked Data and available under an "open" license should
be referred to as "Linked Open Data". That's just my view, of course,
but one I hope many people share.

This is the kind of messaging that really matters to potential
adopters: trying to persuade e.g. commercial data providers to adopt
"Linked Open Data" is conflating two issues that have vastly different
business implications, and therefore lessens the probability of them
adopting either. Let's fight our battles one at a time.

> these are not lod, ", are they on the "web of data" or not?
> If we can get a consensus then great, it helps me using terminology
> better and possibly all

+1 to Enrico's comments about "the Web is more than a filesystem". I
prefer to think of things being "in the Web" (or not) rather than "on
the Web" (see e.g. [2]). If we take (incoming and/or outgoing) links
as a prerequisite for something being part of the Web, then it becomes
increasingly difficult, IMO, to see "the Web of Data" as anything
other than the sum of the interconnected parts, i.e. sets of Linked
Data.

On the subject of credibility, the world at large will evaluate us
based on the demonstrable power of the technology we advocate, rather
than the degree of consensus we share about potentially ambiguous
terms. There's no harm in reaching consensus, if that's achievable,
but let's not lose sight of the big picture.

Lastly, are you honestly inferring a causal relationship between a
lack of consensus about terms like "Web of Data" and ISWC's impact
rating as a conference? If so, then I'm sorry, but that is laughable!
I'm off to demand a precise and shared definition of the VL in VLDB
and the C in CHI... ;)

Cheers,

Tom.

[1] http://www.opendefinition.org/
[2] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200211/msg01290.html


> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com> wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> FWIW I think there is a key distinction between a "Web of Data" and
>> "data on the Web". Much as I wanted to love Microformats (to pick one
>> example), when I tried to use them in anger I became frustrated at the
>> seeming lack of the 'linkiness' we need to truly connect data records
>> on the Web (or strictly speaking 'connect things described by data
>> records on the Web). Linked Data addresses this, which is one of the
>> reasons I'm such a fan.
>>
>> That said, I'm not sure of the real need for a shared definition.
>> Isn't this a case of "each to their own" - something the Web is really
>> good for? Everyone is welcome to their own interpretation, and if
>> Sindice takes a very inclusive attitude to different data
>> formats/models then that's your free choice. Ultimately though, aren't
>> we all just better off getting on and building a Web of Data, whatever
>> definition we choose, than spending our precious time debating the
>> term?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>> On 19 April 2011 12:04, Giovanni Tummarello
>> <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am writing here since i came across a few recent "foundational
>>> style" publications on the topic that give a definition  of "web of
>>> data" basically as SameAs of LOD - also specifying, in avoidance of
>>> doubt, that the LOD community started the web of data.
>>>
>>> I wish to preserve and make clear the difference between "Web of Data"
>>> approaches such as Sindice.com (or anyone dealing with web markup
>>> really, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Goodrelations ecommerce etc) and the
>>> technicalities that LOD considers fundamental requisites.
>>>
>>> In our definition . (e.g. see the very beginning of the video at
>>> http://sig.ma ). the Web of Data,is the web made of pages that exposes
>>> machine processable content definited according to some metadata
>>> standard. So RDF, RDFa, Microformats, but also XML using notable
>>> schemas. Of course LOD is part of it.
>>>
>>> In our view the *all these formats* do indeed serve the purpose of web
>>> scale data interoperability and aggregation. All these allow shared
>>> understandings thanks to shared vocabularies, so the differences are
>>> mostly syntactic and can easily be converted and integrated with
>>> similar, general tools.  [1] discusses a bit more the vision, though
>>> not specifically about this.
>>>
>>> This is clearly outside LOD (it is indeed a vast superset). But i
>>> really apologize if we have used this term wrong so far.
>>>
>>> I will appreciate and change the term if there is vaste feeling htat
>>> there would be no web of data without lod.
>>> Otherwise maybe those who mean LOD can call  it LOD?  :)
>>>
>>> please advice.
>>>
>>> thanks in advance.
>>> Gio & Renaud
>>>
>>> [1]  "Publishing Data that Links Itself: A Conjecture" by G. Tummarello
>>> R.Delbru
>>> http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/SSS/SSS10/paper/download/1189/1467
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr Tom Heath
>> Lead Researcher
>> Talis Systems Ltd
>> W: http://www.talis.com/
>> W: http://tomheath.com/id/me
>>
>> Talis Systems Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales.
>> Registered number: 07196440. Registered office: 6190 Knights Court,
>> Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB, United Kingdom.
>>
>



-- 
Dr Tom Heath
Lead Researcher
Talis Systems Ltd
W: http://www.talis.com/
W: http://tomheath.com/id/me

Talis Systems Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales.
Registered number: 07196440. Registered office: 6190 Knights Court,
Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB, United Kingdom.
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 10:58:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:42 GMT