W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2017

Re: making our HTML+RDFa queryable

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:15:11 -0500
To: public-lod@w3.org
Message-ID: <0c20ec2e-1856-990e-246b-bf2334320e7d@openlinksw.com>
On 1/24/17 11:22 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>>> That's indeed a pressing issue:
>>> who is able to query our data?
>> Our data or data published using Linked Data principles? 
> Both.
>
>> Linked Data is already everywhere
> Sure, and the big crawlers can query it.
> Now the question is: can we?

I don't understand your use of "we" I assume you mean this community? If
so, why not?

>
>> More people will always publish using a variety of document types. Thus, in keeping with RDF's abstract nature, we should embrace RDF document type heterogeneity with regards to Linked Data (publication and consumption). 
> +1, and also heterogeneity in vocabs etc.
>
> But embracing that heterogeneity is hardest for consumers.

Not really.
> It's easy for anyone to publish whatever they want;
> it's harder for consumers to make sense of that in a uniform way.

We just need more client tools, as exemplified by some of he stuff we at
OpenLink Software (and you) and others are producing.

More effort is going into the client side these days. I just takes a
little more work due to the nature of target audience (i.e., time
challenged end-users).

>
> Heterogeneity goes against
> “Be liberal in what you accept,
> but conservative in what you publish”.

Not in my understanding of heterogeneity, in a world were enforcing (or
imposing) a single notation or document type isn't feasible.
> And that's fine with me, I like heterogeneity
> and we will always have it on the Web.
> But it also means we need solutions for consumers,
> such as the pipeline I propose (which is only one possible small step).

Yes, as per my comments above.

>
>>> we can query across multiple pages easily.
>> Yes, because humans or machine can follow links. 
> Links following is great,
> but that alone won't cut it because of unidirectionality.

It's the nature of links that matter in a Semantic Web since they
provide clues about how one or more entities are related, and
implications of said relationship types.

> So if we don't want to please just the harvesters,
> we need to do more.

We need to please a variety of consumers rather than harvesters solely.
>
>>> Linked Data is a good start,
>>> but cannot offer completeness for SPARQL queries.
>> SPARQL query services can follow links, and they can do that very intelligently too!
> Certainly, but are limits:
> https://ruben.verborgh.org/articles/queryable-research-data/#queries

SPARQL queries combined with reasoning and inference can do wonderful
things for data on a Semantic Web :)


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Weblogs (Blogs):
Legacy Blog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen

Profile Pages:
Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/
Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Web Identities (WebID):
Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
        : http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this


Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2017 17:15:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:22:37 UTC