- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:27:20 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, foaf-dev Friend of a <foaf-dev@lists.foaf-project.org>
On 27 Apr 2009, at 20:10, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Steve Harris wrote: >> On 27 Apr 2009, at 14:26, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>>>> 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. >> >> My reading of your sentence above was that you were including PTSW, >> and in any case if you don't not crawl how can you ever get to see >> a reasonable slice of the LOD? > > I was referring to the data sets in the LOD cloud bubble that we've > loaded into the instance at: http://lod.openlinksw.com (which does > include stuff from PTSW but placed into its own Named Graph Group). > Think warehouse just for this conversation. Sure, but that cloud diagram includes FOAF, and something like 99% of FOAF files include bNodes. I don't know what proportion of the LOD web is FOAF, but it must be around 50%. The "Linked" part of the name implies that crawling is a valid tactic to gather the data to me. - Steve
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 09:28:05 UTC