Yves,
Is this really a problem? Why not just keep in mind that triple
numbers are a purely mechanical measure and are no indication of
quality or usefulness?
A raw triple count is just that, a raw triple count. It doesn't mean
anything else. And it is useful for anyone who wants to store/index/
postprocess a dataset/linkset, because for storage and querying the
number of triples matters.
I don't know of a good way to measure the quality or usefulness of a
dataset, and would like to simply claim that it cannot be easily
expressed in a number.
Best,
Richard
On 2 Aug 2008, at 16:23, Yves Raimond wrote:
The same applies for geographic locations, for example. Some datasets
use foaf:based_near to link to Geonames, some others create their own
identifiers, and then link to the corresponding Geonames locations
through owl:sameAs. For the same dataset, this two methodologies will
lead to completely different numbers.
Just a small toy example of that - if I consider the following
dataset:
@prefix : <http://my-dataset/>.
@prefix geo : <http://geographic-dataset/>.
:item1 foaf:based_near geo:location1.
:item2 foaf:based_near geo:location1.
100% of the dataset correspond to links to another dataset.
Now, if I consider
:item1 foaf:based_near :location1.
:item2 foaf:based_near :location1.
:location1 owl:sameAs geo:location1.
, which is equivalent to the previous dataset, this number drops to
33%
Cheers!
y
