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

Steve Harris wrote:
> 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.
No, the FOAF data with bnodes in the LOD cloud come from the places 
you've just mentioned via PingTheSemanticWeb (PTSW) and other crawler 
built from PTSW, or those that performed similar RDF crawling.
> Outside of FOAF the BBC music data, for example, has a lot of bNodes 
> in it.
Hmm. interesting.

Do note you can actually get a feel for what's where re. bnodes and data 
sets via: .

> - Steve



Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog:
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web:

Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 13:26:43 UTC