- From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:30:14 +0000
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
> I don't understand your use of "we" I assume you mean this community? If so, why not? We = this community. Why not = I don't have a big data crawl infrastructure in my basement :-) >> But embracing that heterogeneity is hardest for consumers. > > Not really. So where are all the agents? [1] > We just need more client tools, as exemplified by some of he stuff we at OpenLink Software (and you) and others are producing. +1 Clients are the thing to invest in. >> Heterogeneity goes against >> �Be liberal in what you accept, >> but conservative in what you publish�. > > Not in my understanding of heterogeneity, in a world were enforcing (or imposing) a single notation or document type isn't feasible. It's certainly not desirable indeed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that everybody should only use Schema.org andJSON-LD. However, if we did, interoperability would be much better (at the cost of diversity, which would be a bad thing). This shows that heterogeneity and Postel's law are indeed in conflict; but, like you, I see the solution in embracing that heterogeneity, not in following Postel. Yet that comes with additional complexity. > We need to please a variety of consumers rather than harvesters solely. +1 > SPARQL queries combined with reasoning and inference can do wonderful things for data on a Semantic Web :) �but there are limits with regard to completeness and time depending on the server-side interface (LD documents, SPARQL endpoint, �). And currently, there are far less limits for harvesters compared to individual consumers, so this is why we should enable the latter group through tooling. Best, Ruben [1] http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler/presentations/Hendler-IADIS.pdf
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2017 17:30:49 UTC