W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > October 2010

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

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 05:56:58 +0200
Cc: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Thomas Steiner <tsteiner@google.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Anja Jentzsch <anja@anjeve.de>, semanticweb <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Mathieu d'Aquin <m.daquin@open.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <3E94C9B9-2BBC-4D51-9066-3953048B15BD@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi all:

I think that Enrico really made two very important points:

1. The LOD bubbles diagram has very high visibility inside and outside  
of the community (up to the point that broad audiences believe the  
diagram would define relevance or quality).

2. Its creators have a special responsibility (in particular as  
scientists) to maintain the diagram in a way that enhances insight and  
understanding, rather than conveying false facts and confusing people.

So Kingsley's argument that anybody could provide a better diagram  
does not really hold. It will harm the community as a whole, sooner or  
later, if the diagram misses the point, simply based on the popularity  
of this diagram.

And to be frank, despite other design decisions, it is really  
ridiculous that Chris justifies the inclusion of Denny's numbers  
dataset as valid Linked Data, because that dataset is, by design and  
known to everybody in the core community, not data but noise.

This is the "linked data landfill" mindset that I have kept on  
complaining about. You make it very easy for others to discard the  
idea of linked data as a whole.


Received on Friday, 22 October 2010 03:57:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:05 UTC