David Wood wrote:
Sorry to intervene here, but I think Kingsley's suggestion sets up a
false dicotomy. REST principles (surely part of everything we stand
for :) suggest that the source of RDF doesn't matter as long as a URL
returns what we want. Late binding means not having to say you're sorry.
Is it a good idea to set up a class system where those who publish to
files are somehow better (or even different!) than those who publish
via adapters?
David,
Yes, the dichotomy is false if the basis is: Linked Data irrespective of
means or source, as long as the URIs are de-referencable. On the other
hand, if Linked Data generated "on the fly" isn't deemed part of the LOD
cloud (the qualm expressed in Giovanni's comments) then we have to call
RDF-ized Linked Data something :-)
You can count the warehouse (an arrive at hub size) but the RDF-ized
stuff is a complete red herring (imho - see cool fractal animations post).
What I am hoping is a more interesting quesion is this: have we reached
the point were we can drop "burgeoning" from the state of the Linked
Data Web? Do we have a hub that provides enough critical mass for the
real fun to start (i.e., finding stuff with precision that data object
properties accord) ?
Personally, I think the Linked Data Web has reached this point, so our
attention really has to move more towards showing what Linked Data adds
to the Web in general.
Kingsley
So, I vote for counting all of it. Isn't that what Google and Yahoo do
when they count the number of "pages" indexed?
Regards,
Dave
--
On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:26 PM, Kingsley Idehen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
Overall, that's about 17 billion.
IMO considering myspace 12 billion triples as part of LOD, is quite a
stretch (same with other wrappers) unless they are provided by the
entity itself (E.g. i WOULD count in livejournal foaf file on the
other hand, ok they're not linked but they're not less useful than the
myspace wrapper are they? (in fact they are linked quite well if you
use the google social API)
Giovanni
Giovanni,
Maybe we should use the following dichotomy re. the Web of Linked
Data (aka. Linked Data Web):
1. Static Linked Data or Linked Data Warehouses - which is really
what the LOD corpus is about
2. Dynamic Linked Data - which is what RDF-zation middleware
(including wrapper/proxy URI generators) is about.
Thus, I would say that Jim is currently seeking stats for the Linked
Data Warehouse part of the burgeoning Linked Data Web. And hopefully,
once we have the stats, we can get on to the more important task of
explaining and demonstrating the utility of the humongous Linked Data
corpus :-)
ESW Wiki should be evolving as I write this mail (i.e. tabulated
presentation of the data that's already in place re. this matter).
All: Could we please stop .png and .pdf based dispatches of data, it
kinda contradicts everything we stand for :-)
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
