Re: Semantic Web pneumonia and the Linked Data flu (was: Can we lower the LD entry cost please (part 1)?)

Thanks Andreas for helping me make my point.

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Andreas Langegger <al@jku.at> wrote:

> Georgi,
>
> d2r-server and Virtuoso RDF views (and others) is only the base technology
> which "enables" people to expose RDF out of RDBMS.However, to use them
> accordingly I'm afraid Juan and Hugh aren't so wrong. You'll have to invest
> a lot of time to use the right vocabularies (a) and right (external) URIs
> (b) to expose the right things (c).
>

Not everybody is going to know what vocabulary to use, not everybody is
going to learn a mapping language. Besides the DBA  would be the person who
would have to do this.

>
> Even internal linking is not trivial. Usually a DB schema is not that what
> you want outside. So you have to invest some time for the mapping task. And
> linking only internally doesn't contribute much, so adding external links is
> a must and that's some effort.
>
1+

>
> I don't want to be that pessimistic, but if I've had THE idea to solve
> this, I would share it....
>

The solution to this, imo, involves a lot of automatic ontology matching,
and ontology refinement. I presented my idea to solve this problem here [1]

[1]
ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-401/iswc2008pd_submission_74.pdf


>
> Regards
> Andy
>
> On Feb 9, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Juan Sequeda wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Georgi Kobilarov <georgi.kobilarov@gmx.de>wrote:
>
>>  Wait a second. Publishing Linked Data from relational databases?
>>
>> D2R-Server, Virtuoso Relational Mappings? Juan, you should be familiar
>> with that stuff…
>>
>> Of course... but even though. IMO, not easy enough! I'm taking the
> position as owner of one of the million web applications out there, powered
> by a rdbms, and now hearing about the LD thing going on. If I want to be
> part of it... I would have to invest a lot of time and effort with existing
> tools such as d2r sever, etc...
>
>>
>>
>> Easy linking of data? Not quite solved yet. But wait for the Linked Data
>> Workshop at WWW2009…
>>
>>
> As I said, that is my futuristic position... and I am waiting for things to
> happen!
>
>>
>> Georgi
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Georgi Kobilarov
>>
>> Freie Universität Berlin
>>
>> www.georgikobilarov.com
>>
>>
>> *From:* public-lod-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Juan Sequeda
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 09, 2009 3:02 PM
>> *To:* Hugh Glaser
>> *Cc:* Yves Raimond; public-lod@w3.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Semantic Web pneumonia and the Linked Data flu (was: Can
>> we lower the LD entry cost please (part 1)?)
>>
>>
>> This is a point I have always brought up... it is hard! It is hard to
>> produce LD and hard to consume LD. No sane person will want to do maintain
>> this. Yves just explained everything he goes through and it is wayyy to
>> much! The majority of the data on the web is stored in rdbms. Therefore,
>> IMO, it is crucial to develop automatic ways of creating RDF from relational
>> data and linking it automatically. If this is not going to happen, the whole
>> web that runs on rdbms, will not have an incentive to create LD. This is my
>> futuristic position.
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan Sequeda, Ph.D Student
>> Dept. of Computer Sciences
>> The University of Texas at Austin
>> www.juansequeda.com
>> www.semanticwebaustin.org
>>
>>  On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> YES!
>> Now I don't have to spend my time writing Part 2.
>> (You did notice the (part 1) in the subject line?)
>> I was wondering of anyone would ask me what was part 2.
>> Well, this was it.
>> Pretty exactly, and very nicely put.
>> Many thanks.
>>
>> Despite what I have said about providing a search facility, I think we
>> need to ensure it is easy to join the LD, and make medium-size-ish (or any)
>> dataset publishers welcome, whatever the perceived paucity of missing
>> facilities or components.
>> Maybe I am thinking two opposite things at the same time? I hope not.
>>
>>
>> On 09/02/2009 10:40, "Yves Raimond" <yves.raimond@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> Just to jump on the last thread, something has been bugging me lately.
>> Please don't take the following as a rant against technologies such as
>> voiD, Semantic Sitemaps, etc., these are extremely useful piece of
>> technologies - my rant is more about the order of our priorities, and
>> about the growing cost (and I insist on the word "growing") of
>> publishing linked data.
>>
>> There's a lot of things the community asks linked data publisher to do
>> (semantic sitemaps, stats on the dataset homepages, example sparql
>> queries, void description, and now search function), and I really tend
>> to think this makes linked data publishing cost much, much more
>> costly. Richard just mentioned that it should just take 5 minutes to
>> write such a search function, but 5 minutes + 5 minutes + 5 minutes +
>> ... takes a long time. Maintaining a linked dataset is already *lots*
>> of work: server maintenance, dataset maintenance, minting of new
>> links, keeping up-to-date with the data sources, it *really* takes a
>> lot of time to do properly.
>> Honestly, I begin to be quite frustrated, as a publisher of about 10
>> medium-size-ish datasets. I really have the feeling the work I
>> invested in them is never enough, every time there seems to be
>> something missing to make all these datasets a "real" part of the
>> linked data cloud.
>>
>> Now for the most tedious part of my rant :-) Most of the datasets
>> published in the linked data world atm are using open source
>> technologies (easy enough to send a patch over to the data publisher).
>> Some of them provide SPARQL end points. What's missing for the
>> advocate of new technologies or requirements to fulfill their goal
>> themselves? After all, that's what we all did with this project since
>> the beginning! If someone really wants a smallish search engine on top
>> of some dataset, wrapping a SPARQL query, or a call to the web service
>> that the dataset wraps should be enough. I don't see how the data
>> publisher is required for achieving that aim. The same thing holds for
>> voiD and other technologies. Detailed statistics are available on most
>> dataset homepages, which (I think) provides enough data to write a
>> good enough voiD description.
>>
>> To sum up, I am just increasingly concerned that we are building
>> requirements on top of requirements for the sake of lowering a  "LD
>> entry cost", whereas I have the feeling that this cost is really
>> higher and higher... And all that doesn't make the data more linked
>> :-)
>>
>> Cheers!
>> y
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> http://www.langegger.at
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dipl.-Ing.(FH) Andreas Langegger
> Institute for Applied Knowledge Processing
> Johannes Kepler University Linz
> A-4040 Linz, Altenberger Straße 69
>
>
>
>
>