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

Re: AW: [Dbpedia-discussion] Fwd: Your message to Dbpedia-discussion awaits moderator approval

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:07:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4A8312D6.1020501@openlinksw.com>
To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
CC: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, "dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net" <dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>
Peter Ansell wrote:
> 2009/8/12 Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>:
>> Are you saying that the only way to access Linked Data is via SPARQL?
> That is going a bit far, but in the end if you want to allow people to
> extend the model it has to be done using SPARQL. If the extension is
> taken well by users then it could be included in what is resolved for
> the URI but that doesn't mean it is not Linked Data up until the point
> it is included.
> I for one loved the recent addition of the Page Links set in a
> separate Named Graph, and I don't see how this is different.
> Cheers,
> Peter
Amen!  :-)

Hugh: the important point is this: the person that deems a piece of data 
to be fit for sharing on the Web can mint a  HTTP URIs for said data, 
even it this happens from afar e.g. via Pubby or Virtuoso's Linked Data 
Deployment services against remote SPARQL endpoints. Of course, the same 
thing can happen via RDFizers that produce proxy/wrapper URIs from a 
variety of data sources. None of this breaks the principles behind  the 
Linked Data meme :-)



Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 19:07:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:51 UTC