- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:05:24 +0100
- To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Yves, Is this really a problem? Why not just keep in mind that triple numbers are a purely mechanical measure and are no indication of quality or usefulness? A raw triple count is just that, a raw triple count. It doesn't mean anything else. And it is useful for anyone who wants to store/index/ postprocess a dataset/linkset, because for storage and querying the number of triples matters. I don't know of a good way to measure the quality or usefulness of a dataset, and would like to simply claim that it cannot be easily expressed in a number. Best, Richard On 2 Aug 2008, at 16:23, Yves Raimond wrote: >> The same applies for geographic locations, for example. Some datasets >> use foaf:based_near to link to Geonames, some others create their own >> identifiers, and then link to the corresponding Geonames locations >> through owl:sameAs. For the same dataset, this two methodologies will >> lead to completely different numbers. > > Just a small toy example of that - if I consider the following > dataset: > > @prefix : <http://my-dataset/>. > @prefix geo : <http://geographic-dataset/>. > :item1 foaf:based_near geo:location1. > :item2 foaf:based_near geo:location1. > > 100% of the dataset correspond to links to another dataset. > > Now, if I consider > > :item1 foaf:based_near :location1. > :item2 foaf:based_near :location1. > :location1 owl:sameAs geo:location1. > > , which is equivalent to the previous dataset, this number drops to > 33% > > Cheers! > y >
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 11:06:22 UTC