Sören, Aldo, Peter,
On 31 Mar 2008, at 19:46, Sören Auer wrote:
Nice I really appreciate your work, but we should also a little
careful how to position the LOD effort: it might sound funny to
outsiders when the whole LOD Web fit's on one picture
That's up to us -- I'm looking forward to the day where it no longer
fits on a single picture! It's also worth remembering that 18 months
ago, the LOD Web did not exist at all.
and the major LOD news are about updating of that picture ;-)
I'm very open to other ideas for communicating LOD news. Any
suggestions?
On 31 Mar 2008, at 20:23, Matthias Samwald wrote:
Well, I am working on linking some RDF/OWL datasets from the life
science and health care domain to datasets in the LOD. The tidyness
of Richard's LOD graph shall soon be destroyed! ;-)
Bring it on ;-)
On 31 Mar 2008, at 20:55, Aldo Bucchi wrote:
Is there a vocabulary to describe LOD datasets and their relations?
You can then publish a dynamic graph from that... using disco or sth
similar.
Or batch generate a raster / svg using a viz framework
This should save mr Cyganiak from the tiny bit of hell waiting
around the corner
Specify the amount of data ( resources or triples ).
Individual and aggregates ( per type? )
Strength is in the numbers!
I agree that a vocabulary for describing datasets would be a good
thing. And keeping track of and publishing numbers about the amount of
data would also be good. I'm afraid I don't have the bandwidth to do
any of those things at the moment, but if anyone has some spare cycles
and wants to chronicle the project's growth in a more quantitative
way, that would be great.
The chart would look more scary if it had some indicator of the amount
of knowledge it conveys!
Scarier than a bunch of circles with funny acronyms that don't mean
anything to most people.
That's a very good point.
On 1 Apr 2008, at 02:17, Peter Ansell wrote:
I think for one of the most "connected" elements in the graph, FOAF,
is so distributed that it would be impossible to put a number on it
Actually FOAF is not *that* distributed -- I did some crawls of FOAF
data, and it seems that the number of individual hand-maintained FOAF
files out there is fairly small, a few thousand tops. The rest is
coming from a fairly small number (10-20) of social network sites.
I would like a Linked Data diagram which explicitly gave the links
between the FOAF related sites, ie, which sites and whether they do
actually interoperate
To be honest, I lumped all the FOAF together in a single bubble simply
because I didn't want to put in the time to research all FOAF-
producing sites out there to trace their user numbers and links. I
think the truth is that most of them are islands with just internal
links. It's the hand-maintained FOAF files that tie it all together by
linking into those islands.
Just to clarify overall though, is FOAF in its current recommended
usages, ie, give a name and an mboxsha1sum as the "linked data"
considered part of the mainstream? Is extending one of these entries
with a generic seeAlso considered "linked data"? Should FOAF be not
considered Linked Data unless the items are given dereferenceable
URI's using a meaningful foaf terminology term?
Let's check Tim's criteria to see if FOAF profiles are linked data:
1. Use URIs as names for things -- check. The FOAF spec also
recommends giving yourself a dereferenceable URI.
2. Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names -- check.
3. When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information -- check.
4. Include links to other URIs. so that they can discover more things
-- Well, I would prefer direct foaf:knows links to other people's URIs
over FOAF's rdfs:seeAlso approach. Still, rdfs:seeAlso to other
people's FOAF profiles allows me to discover other related resources,
which is the main point. So, check.
Richard
