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

Re: please help define Web of Data

From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 23:49:32 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=TsUOD031vjrOc4sfApnqoPzpVOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "tom.heath" <tom.heath@talis.com>
Cc: Semantic Web at W3C <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Tom

> 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".

I appreciate you making this distinction.

>> 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.

as much can like an idea , that wont have much impact on its realism.

The [2] you mention is a great resource to start. From that page:

"A service that has no means of discovery (i.e. a link) or advertising
is "on" the Web but not
"in" the Web, under those terms.  It just happens to use a set of
protocols but it
is not part of a web.  So it should not be called a web service, just
an unlinked-to resource."

so 9 years after would you feel this very definition is any credible
or accepted? The man is saying that no explicit  link to a web service
from another web page = not a web service..

That reality says this is false (or would be considered false today by
anyone i care to talk to) .. i think the that extension to the
discussion in question is quite straightforward.

> terms. There's no harm in reaching consensus, if that's achievable,
> but let's not lose sight of the big picture.

i agree of course, so here i am happy to clarify if needed

> 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... ;)

 i meant solely what i wrote, " I  dont think this is unrelated to the
attitude of dismissing real world reality checks and requests for

and if we read it for what it is i stand by it: You're often a
reviewer too. How many times do you see actual studies comparing LOD
based solutions against others? "let other people e.g. the industry
judge our value" is not something a scientific community should say,
but some sort of cult.

it should indeed be the tasks of researchers to write books and papers
that do go trough the boring hassle of serious reality based
comparisons vs  just descriptions of their own systems. When this
doesnt happen the result are quickly uninteresting which is then
captured in a conference rating.

but yes it is a different thread. I'd love to have a nice fruitful
discussion on this at some point.


Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 21:50:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:50:04 UTC