Re: AW: ANN: LOD Cloud - Statistics and compliance with best practices

Hi all,

How about handling GoodRelations the same way as FOAF, representing it
as a somewhat existing bubble without exactly specifying where it
links to and from where inbound links come from (on the road right
now, so can't check for sure whether it is already done this way)? The
individual datasets are too small to be entered manually into CKAN (+1
for Martin's arguments here).

In the end, the idea of a Web catalogue was mostly abandoned at some
point due to being unmanageable, maybe the same happens to the Web
/data/ "catalogue", aka. LOD cloud (the metaphor doesn't work
perfectly, but you get the point).

Martin's point as I get it is that GR forms part of the Web of data.
Currently this is (about to be) honored by search engines and the
like, GR-enabled price/product comparison engines etc. are probably
being worked on (or are already live?), so Linked Open Commerce (well,
an aspect of it) will be/is real soon/now. Whether/how GR forms part
of the LOD cloud is a secondary, if at all, question in my humble
opinion.

All this is my private point of view, my Google hat completely off.
Sorry for the many slashes/alternative sentence endings.

Best,
Tom

Thank God not sent from a BlackBerry, but from my iPhone

On 20.10.2010, at 19:16, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> Hi Chris:
>
> First, I think it is pretty funny that you list Denny's April's fool dataset of creating triples for numbers as an acceptable part of the cloud,
>
>    http://ckan.net/package/linked-open-numbers
>
> <Picture 39.png>
> (right next to WordNet)
>
> The fundamental mistake of what you say is that linked open e-commerce data is not "a dataset" but a wealth of smaller datasets. Asking me to create CKAN entries for each store or business in the world that provides GoodRelations data is as if Google was asking any site owner in the world to register his or her site manually via CKAN.
>
> That is 1990s style and does not have anything to do with a "Web" of data.
>
>> 1.Data items are accessible via dereferencable URIs (provding only access
>> via SPARQL is not enough, as linked data browsers and search engines cannot
>> work with SPARQL endpoints)
>
> Is HTML + RDFa with hash fragments, available via HTTP GET "dereferencable" for you? E.g.
>
>   http://stores.bestbuy.com/10/
>
> If yes, fine. If not - why? IMO, HTML with RDFa payload does not brake any fundamental principles of the Web architecture.
>
>
>> 2.The dataset sets at least 50 RDF links pointing at other datasets or at
>> least one other dataset is setting 50 RDF links pointing at your dataset.
>
>
> This is often hard to meet and seems like a very artificial requirement to me.
>
> First, many small datasets may be just 50 triples in total. Why should a hairdresser in Kentucky, exposing its description in GoodRelations + RDFa have 50 outbound links? What should this beauty store in CA exposing 800 triples do to qualify as linked data?
>
> http://www.plushbeautybar.com/services.html
>
> Second, what kind of links to core LOD entities do you expect from shop operators? For example, take
>
>    http://semantic.eurobau.com/
>
> That dataset contains some 30 million triples of construction-materials information. Which links to dbPedia would you reasonably expect? Is this Linked Data in your opinion or not? If not, why?
>
> To be frank, I think the bubbles diagram fundamentally misses the point in the sense that the power of linked data is in integrating a huge amount of small, specific data sources, and not in linking a manually maintained blend of ca. 100 monolithic datasets.
>
> Integrating 100 datasets does not have anything to do with Web-scale information integration. Note that Google estimated back in 2008 that there were ca. 1 trillion URIs in their index alone. So what are 100 manually converted datasets in comparison to that?
>
> Best
>
> Martin
>
> On 20.10.2010, at 08:49, Chris Bizer wrote:
>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> we are not ignoring anything.
>>
>> I personally think that http://linkedopencommerce.com/ is an quite exciting
>> effort and would love to see more e-commerce data in the LOD cloud.
>>
>> We have asked the community repeatedly to provide information about datasets
>> that they like to be included into the LOD cloud on CKAN.
>>
>> You did not do this. And at this time, we also did not hear about
>> http://linkedopencommerce.com/ yet.
>>
>> It would be great, if you would add information about your dataset(s) to
>> CKAN, so that we can include it into the next version of the cloud diagram.
>>
>> Of course given that they fulfill the minimal requirements for inclusion,
>> which are:
>>
>> 1.Data items are accessible via dereferencable URIs (provding only access
>> via SPARQL is not enough, as linked data browsers and search engines cannot
>> work with SPARQL endpoints)
>> 2.The dataset sets at least 50 RDF links pointing at other datasets or at
>> least one other dataset is setting 50 RDF links pointing at your dataset.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Martin Hepp [mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org]
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2010 22:09
>> An: Anja Jentzsch; Chris Bizer
>> Cc: Semantic Web; semanticweb@yahoogroups.com
>> Betreff: Re: ANN: LOD Cloud - Statistics and compliance with best practices
>>
>> Hi Anja, Chris:
>>
>> It's kind of a joke that you ignore the 1 billion triples of
>> GoodRelations data on the Web, e.g. available at
>>
>>  http://linkedopencommerce.com/
>>
>> or
>>
>>  http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/
>> GoodRelations#Examples_in_the_Wild
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> On 19.10.2010, at 17:56, Anja Jentzsch wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> in the last weeks, we have analyzed which data sources in the new
>>> version of the LOD cloud comply to various best practices that are
>>> recommended by W3C or have emerged within the LOD community.
>>>
>>> We have checked the implementation of the following nine best
>>> practices:
>>>
>>> 1. Provide dereferencable URIs
>>> 2. Set RDF links pointing at other data sources
>>> 3. Use terms from widely deployed vocabularies
>>> 4. Make proprietary vocabulary terms dereferencable
>>> 5. Map proprietary vocabulary terms to other vocabularies
>>> 6. Provide provenance metadata
>>> 7. Provide licensing metadata
>>> 8. Provide data-set-level metadata
>>> 9. Refer to additional access methods
>>>
>>> The compliance with the best practices was either checked manually
>>> or by using scripts that downloaded and analyzed some data from the
>>> data sources.
>>> We have added the results of the evaluation in the form of tags to
>>> the LOD data set catalog on CKAN [1].
>>>
>>> We are now happy to release the first statistics about the structure
>>> of the LOD could as well as the compliance of the datasets with the
>>> best practices.
>>> The statistics can be found here:
>>>
>>> http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/lodcloud/state/
>>>
>>> The document contains an initial, preliminary release of the
>>> statistics. If you spot any errors in the data describing the LOD
>>> data sets on CKAN, it would be great if you would correct them
>>> directly on CKAN.
>>>
>>> For information on how to describe datasets on CKAN please refer to
>>> the Guidelines for Collecting Metadata on Linked Datasets in CKAN [2].
>>>
>>> After your feedback and corrections, we will then move the corrected
>>> version of the statistics to http://www.lod-cloud.net/ (around
>>> October 24th).
>>>
>>> Have fun with the statistics and the encouraging as well as
>>> disappointing insights that they provide.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Chris Bizer, Anja Jentzsch and Richard Cyganiak
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.ckan.net/group/lodcloud
>>> [2]
>> http://esw.w3.org/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData/DataSets/CKAN
>> metainformation
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 18:15:31 UTC