Re: ANN: sameas.org

On 04/06/2009 09:20, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> On 4/6/09 01:54, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> Hugh, Ian,
>> 
>> Great work -- simple, visually attractive, does what it says on the tin.
>> A pleasure to use.
> 
> Yup! :)
> 
> 
>> I think it would be pretty cool to make it
>> <#this> owl:sameAs <U1>, <U2>, <U3>, <U4> .
>> 
>> That way, I could add a nice triple to my FOAF file:
>> 
>> <#cygri> owl:sameAs
>> <http://sameas.org/rdf?uri=http://richard.cyganiak.de/foaf.rdf%23cygri#this>
>> .
>> 
>> (Okay, I like this mostly because of the recursive cleverness of the
>> idea. In reality, an rdfs:seeAlso would probably do just fine. But isn't
>> owl:sameAs sooo much sexier?)
> 
> The risk here is that sameas.org moves in role from becoming a provider
> of annotations on other people's identifiers, to becoming a provider of
> re-usable identifiers. If they want to go this way, that would be great,
> but I'd hope to see some explicit commitment from the Southampton team
> that they were confident the service (at least in frozen form) could be
> maintained for some years. Sometimes even with the best will in the
> world, economic, organizational and other facts mean that services can't
> be maintained. Sameas.org and similar services could be really handy
> (like purl.org) for use with RDF but it would be good to know how much
> we can rely on URIs in the sameas.org namespace remaining usable, before
> putting too much weight on them.
> 
> Hugh - this is probably early days to ask such dull questions, but have
> you thought about this?
Yes.
> Might it be possible to have the site offer
> URIs, and some commitment they'll probably be around for a few years (or
> somehow opensourced to collaborative maintainance if Southampton decide
> not to maintain it later?).
No :-)
Thank you for answering this bit of Michael's post so well.
Our strong view is that the solution to the problem of having all these URIs
is not to generate another one. And I would say that with services of this
type around, there is no reason. Use an existing one, or construct a new one
and make sure it is known about.
If you want permanent new URIs, try using okkam, and we will hope to have
more of okkam in our system soon.
> 
> The reason I go on about this topic first is I could see people very
> easily relying on such services, and doing so for many millions of
> identifiers.
> 
> Another thought: take a look at Social Graph API from Google; this might
> help with people identification - http://code.google.com/apis/socialgraph/
> 
> eg. for me,
> 
http://sameas.org/html?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdanbri.org%2Ffoaf.rdf%23danbri&x=9&y=1>
5
> gives:
> 
> 1.http://danbri.livejournal.com/data/foaf
> 2.http://danbri.org/foaf#danbri
> 3.http://danbri.org/foaf.rdf#danbri
> 4.http://downlode.org/Code/RDF/FOAF/foaf.rdf#danbri
> 5.http://downlode.org/Metadata/FOAF/foaf.rdf#danbri
> 6.http://my.opera.com/danbri/
> 7.http://my.opera.com/danbri/xml/foaf#me
> 8.http://my.opera.com/danbri/xml/foaf#danbri-
> 9.http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/dblp/resource/person/336851
> 
> 
> vs Google's
> http://socialgraph.apis.google.com/lookup?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdanbri.org%2Ffoaf.rdf
> %23danbri&fme=1&pretty=1&callback=
Thanks.
I guess the first question is, should I trust it?
By the way, it seems that you are badly co-reffed in out system - sorry :-)
(And I am not going to "fix" it, so we can see how the background systems
run.)
By the way, if you want the social/network graph, you can put the URI into
http://www.rkbexplorer.com/network/
Eg
http://www.rkbexplorer.com/network/?uri=http://southampton.rkbexplorer.com/i
d/person-62ca72227cd42255eb0d8c37383eccf0-2e1762effd1839702bc077c652d57901
> 
> Another thought - is the whole system necessarily based on pre-loaded
> data, or could sameas.org make some explorations of the Web "while you
> wait"? eg. do a few searches via Yahoo BOSS or Google JSON API and parse
> the results for same-as's.
I would avoid this.
For it to be a service of the kind that John would use, I think it needs to
provide a guaranteed fast response (at least in the sense of no other
unexpected dependencies).
> 
> Re "bad results" it's worth looking at what Google SGAPI does. They
> distinguish between one sided claims vs reciprocations. If my homepage
> has rel=me pointing to my youtube profile, that's one piece of evidence
> they have a common owner; if the profile has similar markup pointing
> back, that's even more reassuring....
Ah yes, now that is a big topic. Several PhDs on trust and provenance to be
done here. What is the provenance of each of the pairwise assertions, how
does that contribute to the bundle, how do multiple assertions from
different sources contribute? In fact, what is the calculus of all this?
Cheers
Hugh
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan
>

Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 08:46:39 UTC