Hi Antoine, Many thanks. Actually, that prompts me to ask a question about LOV. I see that LOV says the AKT ontology voaf:reliesOn dcterms (with a very big circle). This puzzled me because I did not think there was any connection between AKT and DC, so I drilled in. I found, as far as I can tell, it is because the AKT vocabulary itself (at http://www.aktors.org/ontology/portal ) uses dct:creator, and documents that use the AKT vocab use dc:creator, dc:title, etc., about the documents and content itself. This was not my intuitional reading of voaf:reliesOn - was it intended? And if so, is it widespread in LOV? (I realise this is probably a hard problem in general!) Best Hugh
On 22 May 2012, at 13:30, Antoine Isaac wrote: > Hi Hugh, > > >> Well Dominic's site is definitely not isolated. >> It is very well linked at the ontology level, not instance, however. >> I thought his question was timely, since TimBL asked the question at the >> panel at LOD2012 as to whether the criteria for inclusion in the LOD Cloud >> should be changed. > > > > Yep. As far as I'm concerned, something like a sort of mix between the LOD > cloud and the LOV one (http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/) would be really > interesting. > But still someone needs to volunteer (as opposed to "being requested") to do > it :-) > > >> Personally I think it is a shame that such a resource should lose a lot of >> its visibility because it does not pass the rules. >> And I think that putting links in simply to get into the Cloud is not >> something that should be encouraged - links should be put in because they >> are sensible. >> Without visibility, others (such as you!) will be less aware of it and so >> not build the links that would actually bring it into the cloud without >> Dominic doing anything (as you are now thinking of doing, since Dominic has >> made you more aware of it). > > > Yep. In fact this is part of the reasons why the Library Linked Data > incubator decided to create its own group on The Data Hub > (http://thedatahub.org/group/lld). It helped us to make the datasets from our > community more visible to our community, without making it a hard > pre-requisite to adhere to other communities' requirements. > Some nodes (or group of nodes) at > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld-vocabdataset/#Library_Linked_Data_at_CKAN > are indeed "isolated", in the LOD cloud sense. > > Antoine > > >> >> On 22 May 2012, at 08:42, Antoine Isaac wrote: >> >>> Hi Dominic, >>> >>> I guess that it was with the LOD *cloud* that you had issues. It looks a >>> bit severe, but I think I understand the motivations: if the cloud admitted >>> isolated nodes, it would have many of them, and that would look weird... >>> But of course that does not make your contribution less interesting. On the >>> contrary, the BL work has incredible potential for our domain! >>> Btw let me know if you're interested in links with data.europeana.eu. We >>> can maybe try something... >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Antoine >>> >>> PS: I'm copying the email to the LOD-LAM list: I suppose some people will >>> be interested to continue the discussion with you there! >>> >>> >>>> +1 (best I can do). FWIW, the day buying your way in ceases to be the >>>> certain method of acceptance will be a very good day for all. >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- >>> -- >>>> *From:* Dominic Oldman<[email protected]> >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 21, 2012 1:10 PM >>>> *Subject:* Cultural Heritage Data >>>> >>>> Hugh suggested that I post this. >>>> We are currently working with other museums aligning our catalogue data >>>> using the CIDOC-CRM ontology. We can now run single federated queries >>>> based on semantic alignment without the need to insert specific linking >>>> triples. When we applied to advertise our site on the LOD cloud we were >>>> turned down because we hadn’t inserted specific links to other data >>>> sources. I realise that I could just stuff in a few links to Dbpedia to >>>> get accepted - but given that we can harmonise data to a very high degree >>>> with another open CRM RDF data source perhaps we should still be allowed >>>> formal acceptance to the open data community. >>>> Dominic Oldman >>>> *Deputy Head of IS * >>>> *IS Development Manager* >>>> *ResearchSpace Principal Investigator* >>>> *British Museum* >>>> +44 (0)20 73238796 >>>> +44 (0)7980 865309 >>>> www.BritishMuseum.org >>>> www.ResearchSpace.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > -- Hugh Glaser, Web and Internet Science Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ Work: +44 23 8059 3670, Fax: +44 23 8059 3045 Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155 , Home: +44 23 8061 5652 http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~hg/
