- From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 19:57:17 +0000
- To: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
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