W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2008

Re: Size matters -- How big is the danged thing

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:36:21 -0500
Message-ID: <492737E5.3060208@openlinksw.com>
CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>

David Wood wrote:
> Sorry to intervene here, but I think Kingsley's suggestion sets up a 
> false dicotomy. REST principles (surely part of everything we stand 
> for :) suggest that the source of RDF doesn't matter as long as a URL 
> returns what we want. Late binding means not having to say you're sorry.
>
> Is it a good idea to set up a class system where those who publish to 
> files are somehow better (or even different!) than those who publish 
> via adapters?
David,

Yes, the dichotomy is false if the basis is: Linked Data irrespective of 
means or source, as long as the URIs are de-referencable. On the other 
hand, if Linked Data generated "on the fly" isn't deemed part of the LOD 
cloud (the qualm expressed in Giovanni's comments) then we have to call 
RDF-ized Linked Data something :-)

You can count the warehouse (an arrive at hub size) but the RDF-ized 
stuff is a complete red herring (imho - see cool fractal animations post).

What I am hoping is a more interesting quesion is this: have we reached 
the point were we can drop "burgeoning" from the state of the Linked 
Data Web? Do we have a hub that provides enough critical mass for the 
real fun to start (i.e., finding stuff with precision that data object 
properties accord) ?

Personally, I think the Linked Data Web has reached this point, so our 
attention really has to move more towards showing what Linked Data adds 
to the Web in general.


Kingsley

>
> So, I vote for counting all of it. Isn't that what Google and Yahoo do 
> when they count the number of "pages" indexed?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> -- 
>
> On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:26 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
>>>> Overall, that's about 17 billion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMO considering myspace 12 billion triples as part of LOD, is quite a
>>> stretch (same with other wrappers) unless they are provided by the
>>> entity itself (E.g. i WOULD count in livejournal foaf file on the
>>> other hand, ok they're not linked but they're not less useful than the
>>> myspace wrapper are they? (in fact they are linked quite well if you
>>> use the google social API)
>>>
>>>
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Giovanni,
>>
>> Maybe we should use the following dichotomy re. the Web of Linked 
>> Data (aka. Linked Data Web):
>>
>> 1. Static Linked Data or Linked Data Warehouses - which is really 
>> what the LOD corpus is about
>> 2. Dynamic Linked Data - which is what RDF-zation middleware 
>> (including wrapper/proxy URI generators) is about.
>>
>> Thus, I would say that Jim is currently seeking stats for the Linked 
>> Data Warehouse part of the burgeoning Linked Data Web. And hopefully, 
>> once we have the stats, we can get on to the more important task of 
>> explaining and demonstrating the utility of the humongous Linked Data 
>> corpus :-)
>>
>> ESW Wiki should be evolving as I write this mail (i.e. tabulated 
>> presentation of the data that's already in place re. this matter).
>>
>>
>> All: Could we please stop .png and .pdf based dispatches of data, it 
>> kinda contradicts everything we stand for :-)
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen          Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> President & CEO OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 22:36:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:43 UTC