Re: AW: AW: ANN: LOD Cloud - Statistics and compliance with best practices

I happen to agree with Martin here.
My concern is that the na´vetÚ of most of the research in LOD creates the illusion that data integration is an easily solvable problem -- while it is well known that it is the most important open problem in the database community (30+ years of research) where there is a huge amount of money, research, and resources invested in it. This will eventually fire back to us - the whole community including me - since people will not trust us anymore.
Specifically, you can't deny that in practice the mythical picture gives this illusion; otherwise, why have it?

On 22 Oct 2010, at 16:49, Chris Bizer wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>> The fact that there is obviously a lot of low quality data on the
>> current Web should not encourage us to publish masses of low-quality
>> data and then celebrate ourselves for having achieved a lot. The
>> current Web tolerates buggy markup, broken links, and questionable
>> content of all types. But I hope everybody agrees that the Web is
>> successful because of this tolerance, not because of the buggy content
>> itself. Quite to the contrary, the Web has been broadly adopted
>> because of the lots of commonly agreed high-quality contents.
> Sure, where is the problem? 
> The same holds for the Web of Data: There is a lot of high quality content
> and a lot of low quality content.
> Which means - as on the classic Web - that the data consumer need to decide
> which content it wants to use.
> If the Web has proved anything than that having a completely open
> architecture is a crucial factor for being able to succeed on global scale. 
> The Web of Linked Data also aims at global scale. Thus, I will keep on
> betting on open solutions without curation or any other bottle neck. 
>> If you continue to live the linked data landfill style it will fall
>> back on you, reputation-wise, funding-wise, and career-wise. Some
>> rules hold in ecosystems of all kinds and sizes.
> Sorry, you are leaving the grounds of scientific discussion here and I will
> thus not comment.
> Best,
> Chris
>> Best
>> Martin

Received on Friday, 22 October 2010 15:49:11 UTC