Re: Can we lower the LD entry cost please (part 1)?

Hello!

> Sorry, I just cannot accept that a SPARQL endpoint is th esort of thing that
> we should be expecting new casual users to try to use, even with a query
> builder.

You made the point about "linkage systems" - I was answering to that.
I am not suggesting casual users should write SPARQL queries.

> And I am not even sure I accept the "more reliable" argument.
> When I search for a string I get back a resolvable URI, which leads me to
> exactly the information I need to know to decide if I have the right one (or
> it should).

No! You have *absolutely* no way to guess how the results were
constructed! For example, the results will be completely different if
you built your search engine on top of lucene index of all rdfs:label,
of all rdfs:comment, of all literals, of all literals of neighboring
resources, etc. If you use these results for automated interlinking,
you're putting quite a lot of trust in the search engine provided. On
a side-note, we mentioned similar problems in our LDOW paper from last
year. Incorporating a "black box" in an automated interlinking
algorithm (in our case, MusicDNS fingerprinting) is really, really
tricky.


> And even for a SPARQL query you have no more idea how I built the knowledge
> than a resolvable URI.

You clearly have more information, as you end up constructing your
similarity measure yourself (SPARQL doesn't do fuzzy matching).


Cheers!
y

Received on Saturday, 7 February 2009 19:57:52 UTC