- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:05:21 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Kavitha Srinivas <ksrinivs@gmail.com>, Tim Finin <finin@cs.umbc.edu>, Anja Jentzsch <anja@anjeve.de>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, "dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net" <dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>
Hi Kingsley. On 12/08/2009 00:28, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > Hugh Glaser wrote: >> On 11/08/2009 15:47, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >> >> >>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:45 AM, Chris Bizer wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Kingsley, Pat and all, >>>> >>>> >> <snip/> >> >>>> Everything on the Web is a claim by somebody. There are no facts, >>>> there is >>>> no truth, there are only opinions. >>>> >>> Same is true of the Web and of life in general, but still there are >>> laws about slander, etc.; and outrageous falsehoods are rebutted or >>> corrected (eg look at how Wikipedia is managed); or else their source >>> is widely treated as nonsensical, which I hardly think DBpedia wishes >>> to be. And also, I think we do have some greater responsibility to >>> give our poor dumb inference engines a helping hand, since they have >>> no common sense to help them sort out the wheat from the chaff, unlike >>> our enlightened human selves. >>> >>> >>>> Semantic Web applications must take this into account and therefore >>>> always >>>> assess data quality and trustworthiness before they do something >>>> with the >>>> data. >>>> >> I think that this discussion really emphasises how bad it is to put this >> co-ref data in the same store as the other data. >> > Yes, they should be in distinct Named Graphs. I thought you would mention Named Graphs :-) > > This is the point I was making a while back (in relation to Alan's > comments about the same thing). Yes, but this is the point I was making a while back about Named Graphs as a solution - when I resolve a URI (follow-my-nose) in the recommended fashion, I see no Named Graphs - they are only exposed in SPARQL stores. If I resolve http://dbpedia.org/resource/London to get http://dbpedia.org/data/London.rdf I see a bunch of RDF - go on, try it. No sight of Named Graphs. Are you saying that the only way to access Linked Data is via SPARQL? >> Finding data in dbpedia that is mistaken/wrong/debateable undermines the >> whole project - the contract dbpedia offers is to reflect the wikipedia >> content that it offers. >> > Er. its prime contract is a Name Corpus. In due course there will be > lots of meshes from other domains Linked Data contributors e.g. BBC, > Reuters, New York Times etc.. I really don't think so. Its prime contract is that I can resolve a URI for a NIR and get back things like Description, Location, etc.. If it gives me dodgy other stuff that I can't distinguish, I will have to stop using it, which would be a disaster. > > The goal of DBpedia was to set the ball rolling and in that regard its > over achieved (albeit from my very biased view point). Oh yes! - but let's not let it get spoilt. > > > Perfection is not an option on the Web or in the real world. We exist in > a continuum that is inherently buggy, by design (otherwise it would be > very boring). When we engineer things we accept all that - but what we then do is engineer systems so that they are robust to the imperfections. > >> And it isn't really sensible/possible to distinguish the extra sameas from >> the "real" sameas. >> Eg http://dbpedia.org/resource/London and >> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Leondeon Sorry, I was wrong about these two being sameAs - they are dbpprop:redirect, although I don't think that it changes the story. Actually, in fact dbpprop:redirect may be a sub-property of owl:sameAs for all I know. (I think the URIs for http://dbpedia.org/property/ and http://dbpedia.org/ontology/ need fixing :-) ) I had inferred they were sameAs, since they sameAs yago or fbase stuff, which then get sameAs elsewhere. >> >> And on the other hand, freebase is now in danger of being undermined by this >> as well. >> >> As time goes by, the more I think this is going wrong. >> > > I think the complete opposite. > > We just need the traditional media players to comprehend that: Data is > like Wine and Code is like Fish. Once understood, they will realize that > the Web has simply introduced a "medium of value exchange" inflection > i.e., the HTTP URI as opposed to URL (which replicates paper). Note, > every media company is high quality Linked Data Space curator in > disguise, they just need to understand what the Web really offers :-) By "this", I meant putting the co-reffing (sameAs) links in the RDF that is returned with the data about the NIR when a URI is resolved. > > >> Best >> Hugh >> <truncate/> >> >> >> > > > -- > > > Regards, Cheers Hugh > > Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > President & CEO > OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 00:06:35 UTC