On 4/12/11 3:02 PM, glenn mcdonald wrote:
So yes, I think you should feel a little embarrassed about
broadcasting links to a demo in which the very first piece of
data one sees is obviously wrong.
To you the first piece of that is an owl:sameAs assertion. That's
100% fine for you, but that isn't true for everyone else. It just
isn't.
Why, is the page dynamically reconfigured for other people?
As per my latest post. It's just a point of view. You are now talking
about UI aesthetics rather than data quality. The presentation layer is
just that, a presentation layer. The Data layer is just that, a Data Layer.
I'm not saying "first" in some mushy philosophical sense, I'm talking
about the first attribute that appears in the structured-data section
of the page, right under the headings "Attributes" and "Values".
Because out of 21 Billion+ records why should the page order by
perceived quality of assertion in an owl:sameAs relation? Why? Because
it might bug you? Is there an inherent semantic in Links that infers:
1. Thou must click
2. Thou must click and infer
3. Thous must infer?
Moreover, the issue with OpenCyc links to and from DBpedia (not
performed by me or anyone at OpenLink Software) is something that is
going to be resolved when OpenCyc release a new linkset.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a page that immediately brings to
attention misuse or dangerous use of owl:sameAs. You (as a cognitively
endowed being) see the page on one context, that fine. But others will
also look at the same page and see things differently. This is the very
basis of cognition. We are wired to see things differently. IMHO a
clever feature inherited from our universe. Imagine if we could only
observe the same limited dimensions of an observation subject?
The presentation is the page != a position about how I feel about data
quality. It's is just a presentation of data that's loosely coupled to
its data sources. You can even take the source code of the page and
tweak it for your specific needs if you like. That's what this is
supposed to be about.
I could start to understand your view point if my presentation, data
sources etc.. where imposed on you etc. That simply isn't the case, and
that's 100% antithetical to the concept of Linked Data that I am
particularly excited about i.e., the loose coupling knowledge,
information, and data that inherently facilitates free remixing and
sharing of: data sources, queries, and presentation pages.
You've got billions of entities in dbpedia, and the technology
doesn't care which one you pick, so surely you could pick one
where the errors aren't as prominent.
No, DBpedia doesn't have a billions of entities, that just one
dataset.
What? Whatever: you've got plenty of other entities, so surely you
could pick one where the errors aren't as prominent. Here, for
example, is the next one I tried:
http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FTori_Amos
Again, I pick examples like 'Micheal Jackson' because like 'New York',
'Paris' etc., my focal point is/was: use of entity type and other
attributes as mechanism for disambiguating my quests for information
about a specific entity, at massive scales. The aforementioned entity
examples ultimately accentuate the challenge at hand.
I won't drop triples in the OpenCyc Named Graph simply because of a few
questionable relations potentially upsetting a few observers. I am more
interested in real demos, and that means bad or questionable data warts
are part of the package. Exercises like this have triggered many a
dataset fix in LOD land. You'd be quite surprised (bearing in mind your
perception of my data quality values) chow many dataset producers I've
worked with re. data fixes across the ABox and TBox realms.
There are some dubious bits to this, too (she only "composed" one
song?** a person is "subsequent work" of a song?***), but at least
this is a page about a person that appears to be about a single
person. Same technology, better "demo".
No, your demo of the same technology. That's a better characterization.
Again, the inherent tone of your commentary continues to echo a
contentious problem: you can always speak for yourself, just done speak
for me. We are individuals (in a ! owl:sameAs relation).
In due course you will understand my point.
Understood your points the first hundred times you stated them. Any
time you'd like to take a turn understanding mine, feel free.
Open the door first i.e., stop telling me about myself.
We can have a conversation, we've had many in the past. All you have to
do is open the door.
You characterization is 100% inaccurate.
In the context of your insistence on the subjectivity of everything, I
assume this is intended as a joke. Funnier without the typo.
**Completeness failure
***Modeling Correctness error
Yes, LOL re. typo too.
Here's a excuse (as you would perceive it): I have a wonky "R" key and I
kinda type very fast cos I multitask 99.99% of the time. Pass my typos
through a character analyzer to see what I mean re. prevalence of
missing "R" . My keypad actually accepts my hits but doesn't always
invoke the production of an actual "R", funny but true!
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
