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

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

From: David Wood <david@zepheira.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:39:30 -0500
Cc: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, "Giovanni Tummarello" <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, "Michael Hausenblas" <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, public-lod@w3.org
Message-Id: <F2F56745-67C4-4817-BB83-73509A74121D@zepheira.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

On Nov 22, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> On 21 Nov 2008, at 22:30, Yves Raimond wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Giovanni Tummarello
>> <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org> wrote:
>>> 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.
> I think this view is too simplistic.
> I think what Giovanni and others mean when they try to distinguish  
> “wrappers” from other kinds of LOD sites is not about the  
> implementation technology. It's not about wether the data comes from  
> a triple store or RDBMS or flat files or REST APIs or whatever.
> It's about licenses and rights.
> If I wrap an information service provided by a third party into a  
> linked data interface, then I should better watch out that the terms  
> of service permit this, and that no copyright laws are violated.
> There are some sites in the LOD cloud that, as far as I can tell,  
> violate the TOS of the originating service. The MySpace wrapper and  
> the RDF Book Mashup are maybe the clearest examples. Others are in  
> the grey area.
> This is always an issue when party A wraps a service provided by  
> party B. I think it's reasonable to treat all these datasets with  
> extra caution, unless A has provided a clear argument and  
> documentation to the effect that B'a license permits this kind of  
> service.

Richard has an excellent point here.  This type of data separation is  
one I could support.

Jim's question can then be recast as something like, "How big is the  
LOD cloud excluding wrappers of questionable copyright status?"

This view also suggests a community-building step:  Someone with moral  
authority (or something that passes for it) may wish to approach  
MySpace, etc, and get their permission to either expose their data or  
(preferably) show them ways to do it themselves.


Received on Saturday, 22 November 2008 16:40:08 UTC

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