RE: Survey of RDF data on the Web

Hi Andreas,

Great piece of work.
A few comments :

The paper (2.4) states that "RDF subjects, predicates and most objects are
URLs themselves..."  - errm, not!
However it's interesting that you did get a good number of links using this
assumption.

I would suspect that there is a large number of HTML pages with linked RDF
data - in fact it might be worth comparing the difference in the number of
pages using the different embedding/linking techniques described in Sean
Palmer's paper (URL anyone?).

I'm a little confused about the crawling strategies (must reread), so
apologies if you're doing this already, I would imagine that filtering sites
so that outgoing links are only crawled if the current page has asssociated
RDF would significantly reduce the bulk of non-RDF associated pages without
removing too many good links.

It would be nice to see an amalgamated vocabulary containing terms and their
usage frequency (and clashes), this might also be a test of your assertion
about a universal vocabulary being impossible.

Cheers,
Danny.

---
Danny Ayers
<stuff> http://www.isacat.net </stuff>

Idea maps for the Semantic Web
http://ideagraph.net


>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
>[mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Andreas Eberhart
>Sent: 15 August 2002 16:39
>To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
>Subject: Survey of RDF data on the Web
>
>
>
>
>Dear Interest Group,
>
>we re-ran our RDF survey experiment, which was originally conducted in Dec.
>2001 [1]. If you are interested in the results for Aug 2002 and a
>comparison, please have a look at our technical report available at [2].
>
>Andreas
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Dec/0089.html
>[2] http://www.i-u.de/schools/eberhart/rdf/
>
>

Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 15:03:40 UTC