Hi Hugh and all
... skipping Kingsley-related stuff :)
This is an interest to me because there is a whole load of other
stuff that
appears under the dbpedia banner, mostly concerned with sameAs with other
resources (some of which I disagree with).
Pat Hayes and Harry Halpin have a
On 31 March 2010 05:40, Bernard Vatant bernard.vat...@mondeca.com wrote:
I think that dbpedia (all praise to its amazing achievement) should
restrict
itself to publishing exactly and only what it has gleaned from wikipedia,
and any other stuff should be published elsewhere.
IMHO exactly and
Hugh Glaser wrote:
If it warrants it, why not create a wikipedia page about the semantic
web community giving information; then rdf the same - describe it.. then
you get the uri and can map it (and other groups) to foaf:Group.
?
[snip]
Couple of almost-independent points -
Re DBpedia, I share a concern that the Wikipedia turned into a
database product remain fairly clearly defined, even though the
RDFization naturally includes a bit of creativity. However even that
has subtleties - there are the different language
Hi danbri,
[snip]
Also re SWIG, considered as a entity in the W3C world and as a larger
vaguer community. Some W3C Interest Groups have enumerated
memberships; traditionally RDF IG and its successor, this SemWeb IG,
didn't. There is no master list, just a collection of SWIG-related
mailing
I have changed the subject, as things seem to be fragmenting, and this is my
interpretation of one of the fragments.
Please correct me if this is a wrong understanding:
Part of his complaint is that Kingsley has complained that dbpedia is
publishing some stuff that he disagrees with.
As far as I
