Re: VCal namespace

Peter Mika wrote:
> 
> Hi Kanzaki,
> 
> We're in complete agreement... However, the mistake has been made of not 
> deciding which namespace to use, and consequently in the past five years 
> or so people have started using one or the other.
> 
> Personally I don't mind if we choose one or the other, but at this 
> moment Sindice finds 139,000 documents using
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/icaltzd#VEvent
> 
> vs. 25 documents using
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal#Vevent
> 
> The results are most likely heavily biased by the fact that Sindice uses 
> the former to represent microformats (and we've done the same so far at 
> Yahoo), but this is how much we have in terms of evidence.

It's definitely good to ground this in stats. Can you run a different 
query that distinguishes the microformat-converted piece from the rest?

Last time I was at DERI Galway I had some discussions w/ SWSE folks and 
we made a prototype, see sample Google doc (w/ flash vizualisation) at 
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=phsHybBDW1ySxupr8xfL4Zw&hl=en ... 
which tries to take into account the spread of vocabulary use across 
sites, as well as the raw number of documents / triples. In this case 
it's clear such information is critical to decision making: 139k 
documents using the icaltzd sounds like a huge endorsement for that 
work, ... yet if it all mostly from 5 lines of easily-changed Perl 
running on one system, rather than documents out there in the wild.

Here are some related Google Code Search results:

http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F12%2Fcal%2Ficaltzd%23%22&hl=en&btnG=Search+Code

ie. "http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/icaltzd#" ... 142 hits.

Contrasting with only 10 for "http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal#" .

While 142 is > 10, neither number seems to indicate massively widespread 
adoption.

For comparisons:

"http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" - ~72500
"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" - ~51500
"http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" - ~15000
"http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" - ~6000
"http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" - ~6000
"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/" - ~1000
"http://purl.org/dc/terms/" - ~3000
"http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/" - 545
"http://xmlns.com/wot/0.1/"  - 244
"http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns#" - 160

However "http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#" only finds 172, which suprises me 
given the amount of activity around SIOC and hence makes me cautious of 
this approach. Still, the more evidence we can gather the better, and I 
think such searches (maybe with a bit of refinement) potentially very 
illuminating. It's also worth stressing that these crude metrics would 
count equally a line of code in some abandoned test script, versus a 
line in a hugely adopted codebase (eg. drupal, livejournal). So clicking 
through those results and skimming the detail is probably also important.

cheers,

Dan

--
http://danbri.org/

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 12:26:55 UTC