- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 01:56:51 +0000
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Annika Flemming <annika.flemming@gmx.de>, "<public-lod@w3.org>" <public-lod@w3.org>, Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
On 26 Feb 2011, at 02:22, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 25 Feb 2011, at 23:00, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> >>> ... <snip> >>> Why not actual link coefficient from an LOD Cloud cache instance ? That a least shows what's being used :-) >> There is no LOD Cloud cache instance as far as I can tell. > > Okay, you might not see it as a LOD Cloud cache. How about a massive 13B strong live instance [1] with as much Linked Data as we can get our hands on? Fine with me. > There good sampling there since you can use Entity Ranking to analyze usage. >> So any attempt to infer data from something that claimed to be would be misleading. > > No in my eyes, but we can agree to disagree as we've done in the past re. this matter :-) I know. And previously you have agreed to stop calling it a "LOD Cloud cache", since it isn't. And then you slip back into it, and then we have one of these discussions :-) Of course, it is a great resource, both technically and in terms of maintenance, and very useful. A powerful service to the community. And might be just what Annika wants. But there are, for example, wrapper (and aleph-0 size) sets. So people who come to your site and expect to find the URIs from them will be seriously misled. In this sense, it is like caching the web, with all the problems of the hidden web. As I say, great work, but please don't mislead people by suggesting that it has all the URIs in the Cloud.
Received on Sunday, 27 February 2011 01:58:00 UTC