- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:28:08 -0400
- To: Chris Sizemore <Chris.Sizemore@bbc.co.uk>
- CC: Tom Heath <Tom.Heath@talis.com>, public-lod@w3.org, Michael Smethurst <Michael.Smethurst@bbc.co.uk>, Silver Oliver <Silver.Oliver@bbc.co.uk>, pepper@ontopia.net, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Chris Sizemore wrote: > "I'm not sure the Semantic Web is hard; we've just got to be clear about > how we communicate it to people." > > agreed! > Correct, this is why I start with: Linked Data Web or Web or Linked Data :-) Kingsley > > --cs > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Heath [mailto:Tom.Heath@talis.com] > Sent: 04 April 2008 14:27 > To: Chris Sizemore; public-lod@w3.org > Cc: Michael Smethurst; Silver Oliver; pepper@ontopia.net; Dan Brickley > Subject: RE: imdb as linked open data? > > Hi Chris, all, > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-lod-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Sizemore >> Sent: 04 April 2008 13:38 >> To: public-lod@w3.org >> Cc: Michael Smethurst; Silver Oliver; pepper@ontopia.net >> Subject: RE: imdb as linked open data? >> >> all-- >> >> so, i was correct in thinking that imdb is interesting to the LOD >> community. >> > > Correct :) > > >> i agree that offering "what's a/the Sem Web business model?" >> is pretty important in order to get buy in... does anyone have any >> contacts in and around imdb? >> > > I think there might be a Bristol connection here. Perhaps danbri can > help. Dan? > > > >> ***************** forgive the following if it's controversial >> -- i'm honestly just trying to understand better *********** >> > > Discussion is good. Bring it on! > > >> however, on a more philosophical note, i DON'T think imdb neccesarily >> needs to explicitly opt into the Web of Data in order for the world at >> > > >> large to find Sem Web value in that data... i suppose it would be very >> > > >> desirable for imdb to officially provide Open Data/rdf of their >> content, but i don't think that's the only way for the Sem Web to gain >> > > >> value from imdb... >> >> basically, my premise is this: imdb is on the Web of Docs, and that's >> good enough for the purpose of answering the question to be posed here >> > > >> -- http://www.okkam.org/IRSW2008/ (the problem of identity and >> reference on the Semantic Web is perhaps the single most important >> issue for reaching a global scale. Initiatives like LinkedData, >> OntoWorld and the large number of proposals aiming at using popular >> URLs (e.g. >> Wikipedia's) as "canonical" URIs (especially for non informational >> resources) show that a solution to this issue is very urgent and very >> relevant.) >> >> at this point in my indoctrination to LOD (i'm a long time semweb >> fanboy, tho), i guess i disagree with: "From a SemWeb POV this >> [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/#thing >> <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/#thing> ] is pretty useless since >> > > >> the URI doesn't resolve to RDF data. >> Identifiers on the Web are only as good as the data they point to. >> IMDB URIs point to high-quality web pages, but not to data." -- >> clearly i understand the difference between "data" and "web page" >> here, but i don't agree that it's so black and white. i'd suggest: >> "Identifiers on the Web are only as good as the clarity of what they >> point to..." i don't think there has to be RDF at the other end to >> make a URI useful, in many cases... >> > > Chris, yes, I agree; been pondering this myself and for once I don't > agree with Richard; it's not so black and white. I was aiming for > something along these lines with URIs for Email Users: > <http://simile.mit.edu/mail/ReadMsg?listId=14&msgId=15205> > > >> at this point, for example at the BBC, my view is that identifiers and >> > > >> equivalency relationships are more important than RDF... just barely >> more important, granted... having a common set of identifiers, like >> navigable stars in the sky over an ocean, is what we need most now, in >> > > >> order to help us aggregate content across the org, and also link it up >> > > >> to useful stuff outside our walled garden. >> > > The navigable stars analogy is a beautiful one. > > >> so, i'm one of those who feel that websites like imdb, wikipedia, and >> musicbrainz provide great identifiers for non-information resources >> even in their Web of Docs form. i know that most of you here will feel >> > > >> that this is lazy, too informal, and naive of me. but my argument is >> that, for sites like those i mention (not all websites, by any means) >> we may as well, for the purposes of our day to day use cases, use >> their URLs as if they were Sem Web URIs. on these sites, the >> distinction between resource and representation (concept and doc about >> > > >> concept) is not what's pertinent. >> >> i'm aware that most on this list will make a religious distinction >> between: >> >> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Madonna_%28entertainer%29 >> >> and >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer) >> >> but i think that, by convention, and in the contexts they'd actually >> be used, we should treat them both as identifiers for the same >> concept, and that they are essentially sameAs's *in common >> practice"... >> > > Hmmm... > > >> in other words, as much as i love dbPedia and think it's a brilliant >> step forward, i personally was fine with WIkipedia URLs as >> identifiers. the incredible thing about dbpedia is the data mining to >> extract RDF, not the URIs or content negotiation. >> >> i KNOW that, technically, what i'm saying breaks all our rules -- and >> i followed >> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-05-31/HttpRan >> ge-14.html closely -- but philosophically i think there's something to >> > > >> what i'm saying... if the Web is easy and the Sem Web hard, must we >> insist on perfection? must we insist that imdb agree with us and >> explicitly opt in? >> > > Perhaps the Web was hard in the early days as well though, we've just > forgotten? I'm not sure the Semantic Web is hard; we've just got to be > clear about how we communicate it to people. > > >> practically, tho, in an "official" LOD grammar sense, this works just >> fine for me: >> >> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Madonna_%28entertainer%29 >> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Madonna_%28entertainer%29> > >> foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000187/ >> <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000187/> > >> >> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Madonna_%28entertainer%29 >> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Madonna_%28entertainer%29> > >> foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer> ) >> >> that seems useful and easy. to me, that's allowing a "sameAs"-like >> relationship between Web of Docs URLs and SemWeb URIs... i could >> really really run with that approach... >> >> but now, to stir things up a bit... >> >> given the above, thus: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer> ) owl:sameAs >> <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000187/ >> <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000187/> > >> >> >> right? right? ;-) >> > > No way. No way at all :D > > Cheers, > > Tom. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/ > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. > Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. > Further communication will signify your consent to this. > > > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 15:28:49 UTC