On Nov 22, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
On 21 Nov 2008, at 22:30, Yves Raimond wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Giovanni Tummarello
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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)
Actually, I don't think I can agree with that. Whether we want it or
not, most of the data we publish (all of it, apart from specific
cases
e.g. review) is provided by wrappers of some sort, e.g. Virtuoso,
D2R,
P2R, web services wrapper etc. Hence, it makes not sense trying to
distinguish datasets on the basis they're published through a
"wrapper" or not.
Within LOD, we only segregate datasets for inclusion in the diagram
on
the basis they are published according to linked data principles. The
stats I sent reflect just that: some stats about the datasets
currently in the diagram.
The origin of the data shouldn't matter. The fact that it is
published
according to linked data principles and linked to at least one
dataset
in the cloud should matter.
I think this view is too simplistic.
I think what Giovanni and others mean when they try to distinguish
“wrappers” from other kinds of LOD sites is not about the
implementation technology. It's not about wether the data comes from
a triple store or RDBMS or flat files or REST APIs or whatever.
It's about licenses and rights.
If I wrap an information service provided by a third party into a
linked data interface, then I should better watch out that the terms
of service permit this, and that no copyright laws are violated.
There are some sites in the LOD cloud that, as far as I can tell,
violate the TOS of the originating service. The MySpace wrapper and
the RDF Book Mashup are maybe the clearest examples. Others are in
the grey area.
This is always an issue when party A wraps a service provided by
party B. I think it's reasonable to treat all these datasets with
extra caution, unless A has provided a clear argument and
documentation to the effect that B'a license permits this kind of
service.
Richard has an excellent point here. This type of data separation is
one I could support.
Jim's question can then be recast as something like, "How big is the
LOD cloud excluding wrappers of questionable copyright status?"
This view also suggests a community-building step: Someone with moral
authority (or something that passes for it) may wish to approach
MySpace, etc, and get their permission to either expose their data or
(preferably) show them ways to do it themselves.
Regards,
Dave
