Re: linked data mashups

I may not be the correct person to answer this, but the Semantic Web Client
Library states that is "ts the complete Semantic Web as a single RDF graph"


On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> All praise to the work, but..
>
> Although the Semantic Web Client library and middleware that uses it are
> exciting, and undoubtedly part of the correct way to go, I am worried about
> overclaiming; please can we avoid it.
>
> On 24/11/2008 15:09, "Juan Sequeda" <juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
> > Now just imagine the Semantic Web Client library on your server, next to
> the
> > rest of the LAMP stack. Your server is the sparql endpoint for the whole
> > Semantic Web. No need of querying individual sparql endpoints. This is
> SQUIN
> >
> > [1] http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/ng4j/semwebclient/
> >
> >
> "the whole Semantic Web"?
> And I think that the Semantic Web Client library does not make such a
> claim.
> This is an excellent aspiration, perhaps between adults in private, but in
> public it will always be hard to substantiate, for many reasons that would
> make an interesting paper.
> In fact it is so easy to refute, it undermines our other claims.
>
> I confess to being a bit sensitive about this; when you are publishing a
> lot
> of data in different datasets, as we are, it can be hard work trying to
> ensure that Sindice, SWSE, Swoogle, Falcon-S and anyone else are able to
> find them.
> Another paper mentioned in this respect on this thread is
> http://sw-app.org/pub/isemantics08-sotsw.pdf (Michael Hausenblas et al. I
> believe, not Yves Raimond et al.) and which was the start of the wiki page
> table.
> Of necessity this paper on linkage used what it was able to (as they say in
> the text), but as far as I can tell, for example, it seems to have only
> used
> one of the three extant dblp RDF sources, and omitted various others.
> Unfortunately the statistics such as the table in the paper then get used
> elsewhere without appropriate caveats.
>
> We all do our best to cover everything, but in the world of the web it is
> not usually a good thing to claim we have the whole (or even a large part?)
> of anything. I can't even find Google making such a claim, but maybe they
> do
> somewhere, if I could work out the text-based search.
>
> As I said, all praise to the work...
>
> Best
> Hugh
>
>
>