> > My target audience is interested in DBMS scalability with regards to RDF > data ingestion, indexing, and publication. You, as far as I can gather are > more interested in idealism > I'm interested in making computers do a better job of helping humans make sense of data. So yes, I care about data quality and software usability, without which DBMS scalability is useless. I don't think this constitutes "idealism". I think this might be your first post series to the LOD mailing list > Nope. Not even the first involving you. , and you make a quantum leap re. assumptions about what I am demonstrating > or why I released the stats spreadsheets. > Er, no. I understand exactly what you're *trying* to demonstrate. Yes, and most of the folks you refer to on these mailing lists (esp. > Semantic Web segment) already know the entire paper is about the stuff OWL > handles very well. > Yes, and if you spent a year or three going through dbpedia and replacing all the untyped strings with typed nodes, and asserting all the missing owl:sameAs statements, it would probably be a much improved dataset. But this is like saying "Nails hold things together, therefore they're the best way to build a great bridge", and then pointing at a bad bridge made with nails. The bad bridge doesn't prove you can't build a good bridge with nails, but neither does it prove you can. But I'll broaden my question: who is using the LOD cloud for anything other than learning SPARQL syntax or demonstrating Virtuoso? I don't mean this rhetorically, I really want to know. glennReceived on Thursday, 7 April 2011 01:30:34 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:24 UTC