On 10/20/10 2:13 PM, Thomas Steiner wrote:
Hi all,

How about handling GoodRelations the same way as FOAF, representing it
as a somewhat existing bubble without exactly specifying where it
links to and from where inbound links come from (on the road right
now, so can't check for sure whether it is already done this way)? The
individual datasets are too small to be entered manually into CKAN (+1
for Martin's arguments here).
In the end, the idea of a Web catalogue was mostly abandoned at some
point due to being unmanageable, maybe the same happens to the Web
/data/ "catalogue", aka. LOD cloud (the metaphor doesn't work
perfectly, but you get the point).

Martin's point as I get it is that GR forms part of the Web of data.
Currently this is (about to be) honored by search engines and the
like, GR-enabled price/product comparison engines etc. are probably
being worked on (or are already live?), so Linked Open Commerce (well,
an aspect of it) will be/is real soon/now. Whether/how GR forms part
of the LOD cloud is a secondary, if at all, question in my humble
opinion.

All this is my private point of view, my Google hat completely off.
Sorry for the many slashes/alternative sentence endings.

This is why we opted to make a LOC (Linked Open Commerce) pictorial [1] that connects to LOD. In short, I would encourage all Linked Data publishers and curators to embark upon similar endeavors, as long as they accurately depict their specific Linked Data slant and contributions. Remember, this is about the Web, LOD is just one of many Linked Data clusters within the burgeoning Web of Linked Data :-)

Links:

1. http://linkedopencommerce.com -- this space includes variety of purpose specific Linked Data pictorials.

Kingsley
Best,
Tom

Thank God not sent from a BlackBerry, but from my iPhone

On 20.10.2010, at 19:16, Martin Hepp<martin.h...@ebusiness-unibw.org>  wrote:

Hi Chris:

First, I think it is pretty funny that you list Denny's April's fool dataset of 
creating triples for numbers as an acceptable part of the cloud,

    http://ckan.net/package/linked-open-numbers

<Picture 39.png>
(right next to WordNet)

The fundamental mistake of what you say is that linked open e-commerce data is not 
"a dataset" but a wealth of smaller datasets. Asking me to create CKAN entries 
for each store or business in the world that provides GoodRelations data is as if Google 
was asking any site owner in the world to register his or her site manually via CKAN.

That is 1990s style and does not have anything to do with a "Web" of data.

1.Data items are accessible via dereferencable URIs (provding only access
via SPARQL is not enough, as linked data browsers and search engines cannot
work with SPARQL endpoints)
Is HTML + RDFa with hash fragments, available via HTTP GET "dereferencable" for 
you? E.g.

   http://stores.bestbuy.com/10/

If yes, fine. If not - why? IMO, HTML with RDFa payload does not brake any 
fundamental principles of the Web architecture.


2.The dataset sets at least 50 RDF links pointing at other datasets or at
least one other dataset is setting 50 RDF links pointing at your dataset.

This is often hard to meet and seems like a very artificial requirement to me.

First, many small datasets may be just 50 triples in total. Why should a 
hairdresser in Kentucky, exposing its description in GoodRelations + RDFa have 
50 outbound links? What should this beauty store in CA exposing 800 triples do 
to qualify as linked data?

http://www.plushbeautybar.com/services.html

Second, what kind of links to core LOD entities do you expect from shop 
operators? For example, take

    http://semantic.eurobau.com/

That dataset contains some 30 million triples of construction-materials 
information. Which links to dbPedia would you reasonably expect? Is this Linked 
Data in your opinion or not? If not, why?

To be frank, I think the bubbles diagram fundamentally misses the point in the 
sense that the power of linked data is in integrating a huge amount of small, 
specific data sources, and not in linking a manually maintained blend of ca. 
100 monolithic datasets.

Integrating 100 datasets does not have anything to do with Web-scale 
information integration. Note that Google estimated back in 2008 that there 
were ca. 1 trillion URIs in their index alone. So what are 100 manually 
converted datasets in comparison to that?

Best

Martin

On 20.10.2010, at 08:49, Chris Bizer wrote:

Hi Martin,

we are not ignoring anything.

I personally think that http://linkedopencommerce.com/ is an quite exciting
effort and would love to see more e-commerce data in the LOD cloud.

We have asked the community repeatedly to provide information about datasets
that they like to be included into the LOD cloud on CKAN.

You did not do this. And at this time, we also did not hear about
http://linkedopencommerce.com/ yet.

It would be great, if you would add information about your dataset(s) to
CKAN, so that we can include it into the next version of the cloud diagram.

Of course given that they fulfill the minimal requirements for inclusion,
which are:

1.Data items are accessible via dereferencable URIs (provding only access
via SPARQL is not enough, as linked data browsers and search engines cannot
work with SPARQL endpoints)
2.The dataset sets at least 50 RDF links pointing at other datasets or at
least one other dataset is setting 50 RDF links pointing at your dataset.

Cheers,

Chris

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Martin Hepp [mailto:martin.h...@ebusiness-unibw.org]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2010 22:09
An: Anja Jentzsch; Chris Bizer
Cc: Semantic Web; semantic...@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: ANN: LOD Cloud - Statistics and compliance with best practices

Hi Anja, Chris:

It's kind of a joke that you ignore the 1 billion triples of
GoodRelations data on the Web, e.g. available at

  http://linkedopencommerce.com/

or

  http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/
GoodRelations#Examples_in_the_Wild

Martin


On 19.10.2010, at 17:56, Anja Jentzsch wrote:

Hi all,

in the last weeks, we have analyzed which data sources in the new
version of the LOD cloud comply to various best practices that are
recommended by W3C or have emerged within the LOD community.

We have checked the implementation of the following nine best
practices:

1. Provide dereferencable URIs
2. Set RDF links pointing at other data sources
3. Use terms from widely deployed vocabularies
4. Make proprietary vocabulary terms dereferencable
5. Map proprietary vocabulary terms to other vocabularies
6. Provide provenance metadata
7. Provide licensing metadata
8. Provide data-set-level metadata
9. Refer to additional access methods

The compliance with the best practices was either checked manually
or by using scripts that downloaded and analyzed some data from the
data sources.
We have added the results of the evaluation in the form of tags to
the LOD data set catalog on CKAN [1].

We are now happy to release the first statistics about the structure
of the LOD could as well as the compliance of the datasets with the
best practices.
The statistics can be found here:

http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/lodcloud/state/

The document contains an initial, preliminary release of the
statistics. If you spot any errors in the data describing the LOD
data sets on CKAN, it would be great if you would correct them
directly on CKAN.

For information on how to describe datasets on CKAN please refer to
the Guidelines for Collecting Metadata on Linked Datasets in CKAN [2].

After your feedback and corrections, we will then move the corrected
version of the statistics to http://www.lod-cloud.net/ (around
October 24th).

Have fun with the statistics and the encouraging as well as
disappointing insights that they provide.

Cheers,

Chris Bizer, Anja Jentzsch and Richard Cyganiak

[1] http://www.ckan.net/group/lodcloud
[2]
http://esw.w3.org/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData/DataSets/CKAN
metainformation





--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen






Reply via email to