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

Re: please help define Web of Data

From: Pablo Mendes <pablomendes@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:56:33 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTikT+m=THgcV1_VOU3EDdAQs1qbRVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: tom.heath@talis.com
Cc: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Semantic Web at W3C <semantic-web@w3.org>
+1 to links as building blocks (should I say threads?) of the Web

In some half-baked thoughts I've argued "that some of the most important
requirements for enabling a Web of Data are: Globality, Open World
Assumption, Distribution, Autonomy, Addressability, Unique Identifiers,
Dereferenceability, Interpretability, Backwards Compatibility."
http://pablomendes.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/requirements-for-creating-a-web-of-data/

Web linking in the Linked Data sense comprises at least Addressability,
Unique Identifiers and Dereferenceability.

Cheers,
Pablo


On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com> wrote:

> 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 12:57:01 GMT

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