> Please let us know the good the bad and the ugly as feedback from the > field is very valuable to use (you know, when you stare at something for > too long you get a little blind so we are not as good at improving it at > this point).
So far I've only done one experiment with a largish data set (all RDF generated from the arXiv's OAI export, scraped from arXiv article index.html pages, or from citebase's OAI export). A great strength of faceted browsing for those generating RDF metadata from other sources is that it's often easy and painless to find unexpected problems with your metadata. For example, I discovered lots of problems with my parsing of comma separated fields into separate RDF statements, and also found some strange bugs with reduplicated data coming from the aXiv. My biggest piece of feedback so far would really be that you need some better documentation! Nothing is too hard once you've poked around a bit, but since it is in principle so easy to get up and going, it would be nice to have sufficient instructions to do so. (Things like: it's using sesame for the rdf store, which files contain the rdf store configuration, that it's useing lucene, where lucene stores it data, etc, would all be great on the website. Also I'm still having trouble understanding how Longwell 'names' nodes; I can't seem to get it to use foaf:names, for example. There's an email indexed on google somewhere about this, but nothing else.) It's a far more polished program than you'd ever guess from the documentation. Perhaps one of the dangers of programs produced in academia -- too little incentive to hang around for the boring documentation part of the work! (I say this from a position of considerably deeper culpability than whoever worked on Longwell ...) Scott _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://simile.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/general
