W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [foaf-protocols] [foaf-dev] FOAF sites offline during cleanup

From: Steve Harris <swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:15:13 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|7dbcbc2421fbd33e4e61e7cd49cf0b1al3QCFQ03swh|ecs.soton.ac.uk|AF7-4453-8E31-1FC988E15379@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, foaf-dev Friend of a <foaf-dev@lists.foaf-project.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 27 Apr 2009, at 11:57, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>> A lot of the hairyness of xmlsig comes from the transforms. I  
>> prefer signing something nice and concrete, whether XML, RDFa or  
>> JSON.
>>
>> What % of "linked data" is truly free of bnodes?
>>
> Dan,
>
> I would safely say re. LOD Cloud somewhere north of 80% :-) And  
> thats primary due to the content coming from PingTheSemanticWeb,  
> otherwise I would say 90% and higher. The "Linked Data" meme has  
> always encouraged URIs for everything.

I guess it depends whether you count your population by triples or  
graphs, but that seems quite high to me. The vast majority of FOAF  
data (Hi5 and LiveJournal, for example) has bnodes in it, and FOAF  
makes up the bulk of LinkedData as far as I've been able to tell.

Outside of FOAF the BBC music data, for example, has a lot of bNodes  
in it.

- Steve
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 11:16:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:11 UTC