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

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

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:06:50 +0100
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, foaf-dev Friend of a <foaf-dev@lists.foaf-project.org>
Message-Id: <2CBDE4A2-DFBE-4E95-85EA-84D94109C4FF@garlik.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
On 29 Apr 2009, at 14:57, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> Steve Harris wrote:
>> On 29 Apr 2009, at 14:06, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> Steve,
>>> If we isolate the "FOAF Profiles" bubble of the LOD-Cloud  
>>> pictorial, would you say these sources are representative:
>>> 1. http://esw.w3.org/topic/FoafSites
>>> 2. http://pingthesemanticweb.com  (PTSW)
>>> 3. http://sindice.com
>> It seems highly unlikely.
>> The only way to get a representative sample is to select some of  
>> the data randomly.
> Okay.
> So I end this thread by asking: isn't that basically what we have in  
> our instance? Its data comes from the sources above plus others.

I think I wasn't clear enough, I meant "...is to select some of the  
data [from the whole population] randomly".

Given that the 3 sources above don't have 100% coverage, and are  
biased in their own ways that can't be the case.

Anyway, that's really offtopic, my point was that if you have a large  
enough slice of the FOAF data you can see that the majority of the  
data has bNodes in it.

>> ESW links a human-curated selection of sites, PTSW gets fed  
>> similarly similarly and Sindice crawled, IIUC.
>> I don't think anyone even has a good idea of how many FOAF files  
>> are out there, to know if they have a good selection or not. I  
>> think we have 12 million or so unique ones, but we know there's an  
>> awful lot more out there.
>> Ontop of that, "FOAF" is especially vague, eg. do qdos.com profiles  
>> (eg. http://qdos.com/user/Steve-Harris/18b6f60b41e05aaa418565ebfe901d6b/turtle) 
>>  count as FOAF profiles? They have foaf:People in them, and use one  
>> or two foaf properties, but foaf: is not the most common prefix.
>> What about DOAP files with lots of FOAF in them? Some use foaf:  
>> more than doap:, and so on.
> DOAP files are picked up from PTSW and a few other data sets that  
> use FOAF.

Some of them are, yes.

> Maybe we chat by phone of private IM (IRC, Twitter, Identi.ca etc  
> about this) ?

If you like, I'm on #swig, but I'm AFK quite a bit this afternoon, so  
it might be patchy.

- Steve
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 14:07:28 UTC

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