- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 05:56:58 +0200
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
- Cc: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Thomas Steiner <tsteiner@google.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Anja Jentzsch <anja@anjeve.de>, semanticweb <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Mathieu d'Aquin <m.daquin@open.ac.uk>
Hi all: I think that Enrico really made two very important points: 1. The LOD bubbles diagram has very high visibility inside and outside of the community (up to the point that broad audiences believe the diagram would define relevance or quality). 2. Its creators have a special responsibility (in particular as scientists) to maintain the diagram in a way that enhances insight and understanding, rather than conveying false facts and confusing people. So Kingsley's argument that anybody could provide a better diagram does not really hold. It will harm the community as a whole, sooner or later, if the diagram misses the point, simply based on the popularity of this diagram. And to be frank, despite other design decisions, it is really ridiculous that Chris justifies the inclusion of Denny's numbers dataset as valid Linked Data, because that dataset is, by design and known to everybody in the core community, not data but noise. This is the "linked data landfill" mindset that I have kept on complaining about. You make it very easy for others to discard the idea of linked data as a whole. Best Martin
Received on Friday, 22 October 2010 03:57:38 UTC