- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:58:09 +0000
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>
- CC: "KangHao Lu (Kenny)" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
I have changed the subject, as things seem to be fragmenting, and this is my interpretation of one of the fragments. Please correct me if this is a wrong understanding: Part of his complaint is that Kingsley has complained that dbpedia is publishing some stuff that he disagrees with. As far as I can tell, this is not stuff that comes from wikipedia. If it was, he could go in and try to change the pages, and enjoy the delights of the wikipedia editorial process, which might or might not give him satisfaction. But because this is only from dbpedia, he has no such possibility. This is an interest to me because there is a whole load of other stuff that appears under the dbpedia banner, mostly concerned with sameAs with other resources (some of which I disagree with). I think that most people who use dbpedia are using it on the basis that what they get from dbpedia is a reflection (for good or bad, of course) of the contents of wikipedia infoboxes and whatever else the dbpedia team have managed to glean from the site. Adding other stuff, for whatever reason, complicates the trust and provenance of the source. Exactly what is the provenance of resolving a dbpedia URI? Well, it is a subset of the wikipedia information, plus possibly a chunk more. I think that dbpedia (all praise to its amazing achievement) should restrict itself to publishing exactly and only what it has gleaned from wikipedia, and any other stuff should be published elsewhere. It is exciting that we are getting to be sufficiently successful that these questions become significant! Best Hugh
Received on Saturday, 27 March 2010 01:59:17 UTC