W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2011

Re: SPARLQ endpoint discovery

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 12:23:54 +0530
Cc: Francisco Javier López Pellicer <fjlopez@unizar.es>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Message-Id: <15372EB6-ECBE-4B98-9551-127245A6CEDB@cyganiak.de>
To: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Hi Giovanni,

Semanitc Sitemaps seemed like a good idea because it was a very simple extension to standard XML Sitemaps, which are a widely adopted format supported by Google and other major search engines.

What killed Semantic Sitemaps for me is the fact that adding *any* extension element, even a single line, makes Google reject the Sitemap.

In practice, XML Sitemaps are not an extensible format.

On the question of complexity of Sitemaps and VoID: Publishers will get it right if and only if there is a) some serious consumption of the data that publishers actually care about and b) a validator. At the moment neither a) nor b) is given, neither for Semantic Sitemaps nor for VoID.


On 3 Apr 2011, at 18:16, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:

> With the Sitemap extension called Semantic Web Sitemap we did indeed
> give a very simple alternative.
> It was also partially adopted
> http://www.arnetminer.org/viewpub.do?pid=190125
> but what breaks it for that protocol is the part about explaining (to
> a machine) how to go from a dump  to "linked data publishing" which is
> a very fuzzy concent as fuzzy as "describe"
> the chances of someone getting that file actually right were slim to
> begin with (we had to correct several times those who tried) and as
> far as my reports go the chances of getting void right
> (which is in RDF therefore much less intuitive for human editing than
> a simple XML like sitemaps) cant get much better.
> i personally think a single line in the sitemap.xml file is really
> what'sneeded so wrt this this part of the extention really does its
> job. however until there is someone seriously consuming this there
> wont be a need to standardize.
> Gio
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Francisco Javier López Pellicer
> <fjlopez@unizar.es> wrote:
>>> A related question is SPARQL endpoint fingerprinting... Which
>>> is not necessarily straightforward as often people put them
>>> behind HTTP reverse proxies that stomp on identifiable
>>> headers... In principle it would be interesting to do a
>>> survey to see the relative prevalence of different SPARQL
>>> implementations.
>> Agree.
>> SPARQL endpoint discovery and SPARQL endpoints fingerprinting could be two
>> research lines related with the architecture of SemWeb:
>> - Indexing SPARQL enpoint (with/without the help of vocabularies such as
>> void) -> A hint for knowing the effective size of the SemWeb initiatives
>> - SPARQL endpoint fingerprint identification -> "Market share" analysis of
>> SPARQL technology pervalence
>> -- fjlopez
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 06:55:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:23 UTC