- From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:57:10 +1000
- To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Cc: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>, "KangHao Lu (Kenny)" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On 31 March 2010 05:40, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote: >> 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. > > IMHO "exactly and only" can't make any sense here. There is no explicit > semantics in WP, and there is in DBpedia. If you get involved in the editing process on Wikipedia you will notice there is quite a large degree of semantics embedded in choices of article titles, categorisation and templates. Just because it is not stated in a computer understandable format in wikipedia doesn't mean that it is not there. If DBpedia did only restrict itself to information from Wikipedia it would be a sore loss for the Linked Data web, not a success. Even Wikipedia links out to other sites from time to time. DBpedia should do the same, even if some of the links are not derived from Wikipedia like the DBpedia URI's are. Generally though even if DBpedia doesn't publish these links as part of the Linked Data response, I should hope someone publishes them somewhere so that they can still be accessible by other means, potentially an extended Wikipedia Linked Data resource that is not restricted by the limited rules that DBpedia may setup for itself if this idea is not rejected. Cheers, Peter
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 01:57:38 UTC