- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:07:02 -0400
- 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 :-) -- Regards, 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