- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:25:24 -0400
- To: Chris Sizemore <Chris.Sizemore@bbc.co.uk>
- CC: 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>, dgottfrid@gmail.com
Chris Sizemore wrote: >> identifiers and cross-domain equivalency relationships are the most pertinent problems to crack... >> >> > "Yes, and there are solutions taking shape as I type :-)" > > sounds promising, could you tell us more, kingsley? At this juncture: Zitgist LLC <http://www.zitgist.com> :-) We will be putting out some demonstrations very soon that highlight what's been covered in this series of posts by Mike Bergman: http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=430 > will you be at: http://www.okkam.org/IRSW2008/ ? > More than likely :-) > > "How do these (old media) organizations anticipate rather than react to the imminent Linked Data Web inflection?" > > well, i/we don't have the long term business model at all sorted, but i think the first step is making sure our content is "tagged up" with web-native URIs for what it's "about" (thus my imdb, wikipedia, musicbrainz trifecta), and then making sure that the content is made available to the greater Web as RDF under a creative commons-ish license... somewhat like the BBC Music reviews are now, but with more RDF... > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/release/n6gb/ > Sure! Kingsley > > > best-- > > --cs > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com] > Sent: Sat 4/5/2008 11:43 PM > To: Chris Sizemore > Cc: public-lod@w3.org; Michael Smethurst; Silver Oliver; pepper@ontopia.net; Dan Brickley; dgottfrid@gmail.com > Subject: Re: imdb as linked open data? > > Chris Sizemore wrote: > >> good stuff, kingsley -- BTW i'm hoping to get some of the nytimes guys out to see you et al at: >> >> http://www.linkeddataplanet.com/index.php >> >> perhaps the main use case for large content-centric (as opposed to big *concept*-centric, if you follow the distinction?) orgs like the BBC and NYtimes is aggregating content across content owners/silos... >> >> > And so much more :-) > It's this part of the picture that hasn't been articulated that well :-) > How to the BBC, New York Times, and an other (dare I say) traditional > media behemoths exploit the next Web frontier ? How do these > organizations anticipate rather than react to the imminent Linked Data > Web inflection? > > Is a Linked Data business model a mercurial oxymoron? These are the real > questions :-) > >> identifiers and cross-domain equivalency relationships are the most pertinent problems to crack... >> >> > Yes, and there are solutions taking shape as I type :-) > >> sure, Google News, et al, do this already, but it could be so much better with linked data and sem web annotations... >> >> > Amen! > >> that's why i think we shouldn't be too precious about using Web-of-Docs imDB URIs, etc, to help us identify concepts/things... it's too valuable in terms of "tagging" content to ignore just because there's currently no RDF available... >> >> here's a presentation i contributed to which tries to explain some of this. clearly, we are implicitly refering to Linked Open Data in this presentation... >> >> >> http://www.slideshare.net/guest2c797e/wikipedia-as-controlled-vocabulary >> http://sells.welcomebackstage.com:5000/item/submit >> http://ivanherman.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/wikipedia-uri-s-as-reliable-identifiers-for-the-semantic-web/ >> >> >> do let me know what you make of it, if you have time to have a look... >> >> > I will have a look and certainly get back to you! > > Kingsley > >> best-- >> >> --cs >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com] >> Sent: Sat 4/5/2008 2:26 PM >> To: Chris Sizemore >> Cc: public-lod@w3.org; Michael Smethurst; Silver Oliver; pepper@ontopia.net; Dan Brickley >> Subject: Re: imdb as linked open data? >> >> Chris Sizemore wrote: >> >> >>> hmmm, kingsley, I'm not sure those labels are clear, actually... I think >>> I understand the distinctions, but... >>> >>> >>> >> Chris, >> >> I am saying that we communicate the essence of the matter (at the >> current time): Linked Data Web as an adjunct to the current Document >> Web, rather than lose our emerging audience -- a frequent occurrence >> when using the broader term: "Semantic Web" :-) >> >> I think this issue of description and language certainly needs >> collaborative work via a Wiki article etc.. >> >> I am more or less done with the LOD Wiki Space >> <http://community.linkeddata.org/MediaWiki>. Which can act an area for >> us to finesse some of our descriptions and language. >> >> The setup is explained at: >> http://community.linkeddata.org/MediaWiki/index.php?VirtuosoWiki:About >> >> >> Kingsley >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com] >>> Sent: 04 April 2008 16:28 >>> To: Chris Sizemore >>> Cc: Tom Heath; public-lod@w3.org; Michael Smethurst; Silver Oliver; >>> pepper@ontopia.net; Dan Brickley >>> Subject: Re: imdb as linked open data? >>> >>> 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 Monday, 7 April 2008 21:35:04 UTC