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

On 10/21/10 11:56 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
> 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).

True re. visibility.

Subjective quality bearer, I think not :-)

> 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.

Methinks creators executed on a marketing plan. Personally, I enjoy the 
fact that people otherwise tagged as "geeks" have ended up demonstrated 
potent marketing prowess, really.

> So Kingsley's argument that anybody could provide a better diagram 
> does not really hold. 

I said: more diagrams, each addressing a specific realm of interest (and 
bias) here are some examples:

1. -- you know about this one clearly

3. -- UMBEL (TBox 
4. -- Bio2RDF
-- Old Dynamic Linked Data Cloud via Sponger (URIBurner in current LOD 
cloud) .

> 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.

How does a single diagram define a community? IMHO attacking those that 
have made contributions that have become popular says more about 
problems in our community.

We really have to make up our minds what we want here. Everyone is 
entitled to their own biases (context lenses) that's the fundamental 
beauty of the Web, especially the Linked Data variant that's rapidly 
taking shape.

Until the Web stops us from projecting our individual biases, I stand by 
my position i.e., let a million LOD cloud variants rain :-)

I strongly encourage you to make an alternative pictorial that addresses 
the areas that concern you. Of course, if their is language that may 
concern you re. the report from Chris, then that's a different matter 
re. potentially for deeming the LOD cloud pictorial as canonical.

> 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.
Do you really believe that most powerpoint viewers actually drill down 
this deep into the pictorial?

When people ask be about the cloud i.e., what does it signify etc. My 
answer goes like this: Linked Data exists on the Web, and that its on a 
discernible exponential curve (meaning critical mass to VCs and suits). 
I don't make any statements about "subjective quality". If people ask: 
how is this going to affect business models? I show them the Linked Open 
Commerce cloud collection, and they get it, pronto!

Pronto! implying there's money to be made, but biz models remains fuzzy 
since Linked Data QoS factors haven't really crystallized due to basic 
Linked Data concept remaining mercurial to comprehend. Thus, you get 
your typical powerpoint effect: seed planted, hockey stick potential is 
sorta there, now let me go figure how to make this 
less-fuzzy-web-opportunity my own money making reality etc..

> 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.

Come on!

Seriously, where would Linked Data be without the LOD cloud pictorial 
re. mindshare acquisition?

Let's just make more realm / bias specific pictorials and and associated 
data set analysis reports so that newly uncovered Linked Data dimensions 
go viral like the LOD cloud. Thus, I can only agree with you once you've 
taken corrective action :-)

> Best
> Martin



Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Twitter/ kidehen

Received on Friday, 22 October 2010 21:00:20 UTC