Re: LOD cloud updated

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>> Specify the amount of data ( resources or triples ).
>> Individual and aggregates ( per type? )
>
>> Strength is in the numbers!
>
> I agree that a vocabulary for describing datasets would be a good thing. And
> keeping track of and publishing numbers about the amount of data would also
> be good. I'm afraid I don't have the bandwidth to do any of those things at
> the moment, but if anyone has some spare cycles and wants to chronicle the
> project's growth in a more quantitative way, that would be great.
>
>> The chart would look more scary if it had some indicator of the amount
>> of knowledge it conveys!
>> Scarier than a bunch of circles with funny acronyms that don't mean
>> anything to most people.
>
> That's a very good point.

The beauty of the current picture (thanks, Richard!) is in its
simplicity. Anyone can look at it and say: "I understand this. Linked
data is a great idea.". Cluttering figure with numbers may look scary
but will this "scary-ness" help or defeat the purpose of the figure? I
am afraid it will be the later for many. Think iPhone versus more
complex-looking (but less successful) devices.

Having said that, if someone collected together and kept track of
numbers, that would be a great resource. Our colleague Sheila [1] has
done some work on mapping ontologies / namespaces on the Semantic Web.
While her work does not map 1:1 and is at a finer-grained level,
perhaps it can feed into work of analyzing linked data usage on the
web if someone is doing that. (Which might not be that trivial of a
task, unless someone already have the numbers at hand)

[1] http://www.deri.ie/about/team/member/sheila_kinsella/

P.S. Just to reiterate: not against quantitative indication of the
amount of linked data, but would keep things simple and put them in a
separate table / figure.

Uldis

[ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]

Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 22:15:41 UTC