- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:46:54 +0000
- To: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
As some of you have worked out by now, I am getting frustrated trying to provide links from my stuff to the other stuff. When I do find the links, they may be of dubious quality, but worse still, I am having difficulty finding them at all. So I started at dbpedia, and followed outgoing arrows. Firstly I tried to find some MusicBrainz stuff. No links that I could find for the bands and songs I could think of. So I saw Gutenburg; excellent, I can't see anything in dbpedia, but finally managed to do a SPARQL query on gutenburg (the browsing doesn't seem to work), that showed me that gutenburg knows about "Ozma of Oz" and so does wikipedia. But still no link in dbpedia. I am pleased to report that China gets me from dbpedia to the Factbook. So I decided to do some looking at links to dbpedia. And I found for example that magnatune uses dbpedia country links, which is good, but I haven't yet managed to get from Crunchbase to dbpedia for something like microsoft. So then I look at the (my) RKB cloud, and can report that the links from courseware to the outside are all about languages (I think), which would disappoint someone coming looking for courses in www.w3.org or dbpedia via that route. Am I doing something wrong here, or is it really the case that our much-loved LOD diagrams are misleading, or at best will not give newcomers the links they are expecting? If that is the case, how could we be more clear and helpful? And before Michael says it, yes, maybe void is an answer to show people what the nature of the links are and where to find them? Best Hugh. And if I was feeling really frustrated I would remark that more than 10% (6/43 or 5/44) of the node links on the famous diagrams are broken. :-)
Received on Sunday, 15 February 2009 20:47:46 UTC