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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:16:03 -0400
Message-ID: <4A8314F3.4010503@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:
> [SNIP]
> I have been working on a system that can take notice of Named Graphs,
> but it doesn't work with arbitrary URI's as it requires the URI's to
> be normalised to some scheme that the software recognises. For
> instance, the normalised form of http://dbpedia.org/resource/London in
> my system is "http://domain.name/dbpedia:London", with the domain.name
> being specified by the user. By design it doesn't fit with the notion
> that URI's are opaque and shouldn't be modified, but it is hard to
> deny that it works. Resolving http://qut.bio2rdf.org/dbpedia:London
> for instance will include the PageLinks set along with any extensions
> that Matthias Samwald has included to link OBO to DBpedia (although in
> this case it is unlikely any would exist in this set) and some links
> that the DrugBank LODD project provide using their dataset in relation
> to DBpedia resources. If you want to know exactly which datasets would
> be resolved there is a URI for that...
> http://qut.bio2rdf.org/queryplan/dbpedia:London
> In some ways it isn't really typical Linked Data, but it allows the
> distributed extensions that I think people really want access to in
> some cases.
Typical or Atypical Linked Data should come down to this:
Can I de-reference a negotiated representation of the metadata for a 
given Entity (Data Item)  via its HTTP URI.

If I can, then it is Linked Data meme compliant.

>> I'm afraid I find Linked Data (by resolving URIs) really beautiful, and
>> think I can understand how I and others might use it. So when it is
>> suggested that the way to solve an issue with how it works is to step
>> outside the RDFramework, I think it needs to be challenged or brought into
>> the Framework.
> One way you could do it could be by including links to the extended
> versions in the original URI For example:
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/London>
> <http://purl.org/ontology/lodextensions#hasExtendedVersion>
> <http://bio2rdf.org/dbpedia:London>
> The hasExtendedVersion could be derived from seeAlso. If you extend
> the term then it will only be applicable to user agents who are either
> doing reasoning for seeAlso related properties and know they want
> seeAlso references included, or know they want an actual extended
> version which might not all be derived from the original source (in
> this case the original source is just the pieces of information
> available in the background in the named graph "http://dbpedia.org" in
> the http://dbpedia.org/sparql endpoint).
> I don't have it perfect I admit. There are still some qualms from the
> other Bio2RDF guys about my including too many extensions and slowing
> down the process of URI resolution, but the possibility of extended
> versions is there for people who want to experiment with them. (This
> has led to a difference in the information that the two Bio2RDF
> mirrors provide, which is definitely broken, but should be fixed in
> future)
As per your case, as long as your HTTP URIs pass the test above, other 
services can slurp, caches, and expose your data for reduced latency. If 
you provide enough information via HTTP, the caches can be quite 
sensitive to changes at source.

Linked Data meme or framework or anything else isn't broken :-)

>> Hope that helps to show where I come from.
> It does put it pretty well. I just fear that the ability to extend
> won't be accommodated in what is a really cool, but contextually
> limited, single URI for every piece of information method without
> exploring the other possibilities for modularisation and extension by
> third parties such as extra RDF statements being inserted that keep
> LOD active but can make it extensible as well.
> Maybe there is a reason for saying that the LOD model is broken with
> respect to context, as URI's have no context until they are resolved,
> and if you resolve the information LOD currently expects that every
> known piece of information is coming back, although there are already
> extensions available that can be used to make more useful documents in
> some contexts (such as PageLinks, the subject of this thread,
> DrugBank, OBO2DBpedia mappings etc.)
> Cheers,
> Peter
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________
> Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
> Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion



Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 19:16:49 UTC

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