W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2009

Re: sanity checking the LOD Cloud statistics

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:24:11 +0100
To: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|0a1bded14c025586d47a404d863ae82cl30AOP02hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|A5D0%hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Nice going Ted.
Sanity checking (and even QA) is always good.
(I'll try and find the time to respond accurately to the RKB queries soon.)

Just one general comment I'd like to make - size isn't everything!

Millions of links between dbpedia and yago or freebase might give us a nice
warm feeling, but it would be nice to find space for what I think of as very
valuable links, that might be in small numbers - small but perfectly formed?

For example, if I was to have a site about the British royal family (or
maybe a small company or institution), I might only have a few hundred
people in it, some of whom would have pages in dbpedia, but certainly less
than 100.
If I have carefully made those links, it will be a great benefit to my site
(and possibly LOD in general), but there will be little or no visibility in
the LOD wiki, and certainly not the LOD diagram.
This seems a shame to me.
Of course, I could construct stuff to get over some arbitrary threshold if I
really want to, but we really don't want to encourage that.

(By the way, this is actually the situation for things like our RKB links to
Computer Scientists in dbpedia:- as you can imagine, there are not a huge
number of Computer Scientists in wikipedia.)

Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 09:25:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:46 UTC