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

Aldo Bucchi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>   
>> Yves Raimond wrote:
>>     
>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Giovanni Tummarello
>>> <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org> 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)
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Actually, I don't think I can agree with that. Whether we want it or
>>> not, most of the data we publish (all of it, apart from specific cases
>>> e.g. review) is provided by wrappers of some sort, e.g. Virtuoso, D2R,
>>> P2R, web services wrapper etc. Hence, it makes not sense trying to
>>> distinguish datasets on the basis they're published through a
>>> "wrapper" or not.
>>>
>>> Within LOD, we only segregate datasets for inclusion in the diagram on
>>> the basis they are published according to linked data principles. The
>>> stats I sent reflect just that: some stats about the datasets
>>> currently in the diagram.
>>>
>>> The origin of the data shouldn't matter. The fact that it is published
>>> according to linked data principles and linked to at least one dataset
>>> in the cloud should matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Giovanni
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>
>>>       
>> Yves,
>>
>> I agree. But I am sure you can also see the inherent futility in pursuing
>> the size of the pure Linked Data Web :-)  The moment you arrive at a number
>> it will be obsolete :-)
>>
>> I would frame the question this way: is LOD hub now dense enough for basic
>> demonstrations of Linked Data Web utility to everyday Web users? For
>> example, can we "Find" stuff on the Web with levels of precision and
>> serendipity erstwhile unattainable? Can we now tag stuff on the Web in a
>> manner that makes tagging useful? Can we alleviate the daily costs of Spam
>> on mail inboxes? Can all of the aforementioned provide the basis for
>> relevant discourse discovery and participation?
>>     
>
> Sorry, this is getting too interesting to stay in lurker mode ;)
>
> Kingsley, absolutely. We have got to that point. The fun part has begun.
>
> To quote Jim, who started this thread:
>
> http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/2008/03/jim_hendler_talks_about_the_se.php
>
> Go to minute 28 aprox ( I can't listen to it here, I just blocked mp3's ).
> Jim touches on how a geo corpus can be used to dissambiguate tags on flickr.
> This is one such use, low hanging fruit wrt the huge amount of linked
> data, and a first timer in terms of IT.
>
> This was not possible last year!
> It is now.
>
> I guess that is THE question now: What can we do this year that we
> couldn't do last year?
> ( thanks to the massive amount of available LOD ).
>
> Best,
> A
>   
Aldo,

Yep!

So we should start building up a simple collection (in a Wiki) of simple 
and valuable things you can now achieve courtesy of Linked Data :-)

"Find" replacing "Search" as the apex of the Web value proposition 
pyramid for everyday Web Users.

Courtesy of Linked Data (warehouse and/or dynamic), every Web 
information resource is now a "DBMS View" in disguise :-)

Kingsley
>   
>> --
>>
>>
>> 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 23:11:56 UTC