Re: LOD cloud updated

Aldo Bucchi wrote:
>>  One of the nice things of Richard's cloud is that he does not get pedantic
>>  about exactly what a bubble means. So some of them are straightforward LOD
>>  sites; others are multiple sites, and still others are almost just
>>  ontologies against which people are publishing linked data. This is good,
>>  because otherwise we would have long discussions about the semantics of
>>  bubbles and more worringly arcs!
>>     
>
> Good point.
> I tend to forget that academia is still majority here... trying to add
> more info to the cloud will introduce subjectivity and ignite endless
> discussions.
> Let me rephrase what I meant:
>
> "We need a source so that business people, or at least non semweb
> related people, can get their hands on something concrete that conveys
> the inmense amount of knowledge that is being internlinked".
>
> You might be in favor or against this, but I can foresee that after
> the W3C conference in Beijing the semantic web will be reborn as the
> linked data web. I have the feeling that this whole "rebranding" is
> starting to catch people's attention ( drupal, social nets, etc ) and
> the LOD cloud is sitting in the midst of it. Its the link that
> everyone passes around.
> I have used it for several sales and fund raising presentations
> myself... and I never get the "oooooh" I expect when that nice drawing
> appears on screen.
>
> Perhaps a PhD student could take this a research subject. Or someone
> majoring in a data mining related area... who can give it the
> "business twist".
>
> Thanks,
> Aldo
>   

Aldo.

More Wiki fodder :-)

Good stuff!


Kingsley
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>   
>>  (Thanks for adding the RKBExplorer stuff, Richard.)
>>  With reference to size, which of course matters:
>>
>>  One of the nice things of Richard's cloud is that he does not get pedantic
>>  about exactly what a bubble means. So some of them are straightforward LOD
>>  sites; others are multiple sites, and still others are almost just
>>  ontologies against which people are publishing linked data. This is good,
>>  because otherwise we would have long discussions about the semantics of
>>  bubbles and more worringly arcs!
>>  But perhaps a little more meaning could be introduced to give a sense to
>>  casual observers (and others) that this is no just a collection of 27 (or
>>  whatever) sites.
>>  Would it be hard to make some of the bubbles (such as FOAF and RKBExplorer)
>>  clouds themselves, to indicate this?
>>  I rather like the idea that the LOD cloud has become a cloud of clouds.
>>
>>  Best
>>  Hugh
>>
>>
>>
>>  On 01/04/2008 23:15, "Uldis Bojars" <captsolo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > 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/ ]
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 20:18:24 UTC