Re: PageRank approaches

May I ask where you got the PageRank of the documents from, since there is no free/commercial/educational API i know of!?

Cheers,
Daniel

> Hi Michael,
> 
> We looked at combining PageRank and lightweight reasoning before.
> 
> Piero A. Bonatti, Aidan Hogan, Axel Polleres and Luigi Sauro. "Robust and Scalable Linked Data Reasoning Incorporating Provenance and Trust Annotations". In the Journal of Web Semantics 9(2): pp. 165–201, 2011.
> 
> http://sw.deri.org/~aidanh/docs/saor_ann_final.pdf
> 
> We took a dataset of 1.1 billion statements from 4 million Web documents. Ranking was done over documents based on dereferenceable links. Triples were ranked as the sum of the PageRank of the documents they appear in. An annotation framework was used to produce ranks for inferences (for a small subset of OWL 2 RL). We then used the triple ranks to remove the "weakest" triples involved in inconsistencies.
> 
> Hope you find it interesting.
> 
> Cheers,
> Aidan
> 
> On 14/05/2012 10:29, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Enrique,
>> 
>> if you have a conjunction of statements (a set of triples) and you take one
>> statement (triple) away, you can conclude less but you cannot conclude
>> something that is wrong with the statement (triple) you took away.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Michael Brunnbauer
>> 
>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:09:21PM +0200, Enrique Pérez Arnaud wrote:
>>> Any reasoning software necessarily defines validity. Not what is and what
>>> is not true, but what kind of information may or may not be true, and what
>>> would also be true if what may be true is so.
>>> 
>>> Would not PageRank compromise the validity of the reasoning software that
>>> had to analyze its results?
>>> 
>>> I mean, for human searches PageRank may be reasonable, but is it so for
>>> logical searches?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Enrique Pérez Arnaud
>>> enriquepablo@gmail.com
>> 
> 
>