Re: KIT releases 14 billion triples to the Linked Open Data cloud

This shows that the semantic web community is cool!

Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com


On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Mischa Tuffield <mmt04r@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:

> On 1 Apr 2010, at 17:58, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Martin Hepp (UniBW)
> > <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> >> Hi Denny:
> >> Without spooling your All Fools' Day joke: I think it is a dangerous
> one,
> >> because there is obviously a true core in the expected criticism.
> >>
> >> I think that without any need, you give outsiders additional ammunition
> to
> >> confirm other outsiders' prejudices against the value of linked data. I
> bet
> >> you will find lots of triples in the current LOD cloud that have
> information
> >> value close to the triples in your "experiment".
> >>
> >> And many people communicating over the potential of the Web of Linked
> Data,
> >> and maybe deciding about business investments, will not see the joke in
> your
> >> page.
> >
> > On the contrary, I think it was both funny and healthy for the semweb
> community.
>
> I couldn't agree more, at first glance, I was super skeptical and even a
> tad annoyed, but seeing that it was Denny, and the fact that it was posted
> on 2010-04-01 put a massive smile on my face and made me burst out laughing.
> If anything it shows maturity in the techniques and the practise, showing
> how people can easily knock together such a compelling (prank of a) linked
> data service. Awesome...
>
> Mischa *looking forward to seeing more SW related april fools
>
> > My thought process when I carelessly saw the original blurb go past
> > was as follows:
> >
> > * oh dear, more overblown hype for some semweb thing, that's not good
> > * oh, it's quite stupid in fact
> > * ah it's Denny, and I like everything he makes ... and ah yeah
> 2010-04-01, phew
> >
> > The fact that I was even for a second prepared to entertain the idea
> > that this was serious, worries me. And clearly a few others on the
> > list went further before realising. Which is why I say this was a
> > healthy exercise. If we as a community are so used to over-hyped folly
> > that we could consider that this might have been a serious offering,
> > then we ought to take more care of our habits during the other 364
> > days of the year. If I hadn't seen Denny's name against the project or
> > actually read the paper, I'd probably have been taken in too...
> >
> > If we can't laugh at ourselves, we'll be ill prepared to deal with
> > criticism. And criticism is healthy for any technology community, but
> > especially one whose ambitions are as large as ours. We are trying to
> > build a global, integrated system for planet-wide sharing of
> > descriptions of all things and their interconnections. Described like
> > that, it sounds like drug-addled idiocy, but that's what we're doing.
> > And the only way we'll manage it is if we do it in good humour. This
> > means acting gracefully when fans of other technologies offer
> > criticism, whether or not they are gentle in their words. And it means
> > taking care to balance enthusiasm for the potential of this technology
> > with a realisation that there's still a long way to go in making these
> > tools and techniques a joy for non-enthusiasts to use...
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
>
>
>