- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:56:02 +0200
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, "Mischa@Garlik" <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Kingsley Idehen wrote: > > Ian Davis wrote: >> I wonder if we could highlight those doing a great job in this space >> more, e.g. I believe Opera's foaf output is LOD > Ian, > > There are other LOD compliant FOAF spaces should we want to venture down > this path. > > Personally, I think FOAF should have it's own cloud. This cloud should > be connected LOD and then be exposed in two ways: > > 1. via the current FOAF node (i.e. when clicked) > 2. it's own cloud diagram > > Links: > > 1. http://esw.w3.org/topic/FoafSites Yep, I think in some ways a FOAF 'blob' in the LOD diagram is misleading. FOAF I think is rather a vocabulary element present in many of the datasets and documents being linked. Dublin Core, SIOC, DOAP etc too. There is also a notion of a 'FOAF document' but this is pretty informal. What would be interesting (very very interesting) would be to have metrics for the % of documents, sources etc that have graph structures matching some common SPARQL patterns. For FOAF and for other vocabs. A lot of folk would find this very useful I'm sure... cheers, Dan
Received on Friday, 19 September 2008 13:57:00 UTC