Re: data vs. information (Was Re: implied datasets)

Thanks for all your thoughts William - food for pondering. A few comments, which I find hard to interleave - sorry. The totl.net site doesn't have to be hit for the URIs to have value. dbpedia doesn't even have to exist for the URIs to have value () - well at least not very often; it may have been

data vs. information (Was Re: implied datasets)

* [2011-05-23 18:19:49 +] Hugh Glaser écrit: ] I won't go into whether the April Fool's joke of the integers might ] actually be useful (note that dbpedia has quite a lot of URIs for numbers), ] but there will be many other "standard" URIs for things that we take for granted. ] The recent co

Re: implied datasets

* [2011-05-23 14:46:47 +0100] Leigh Dodds écrit: ] I'm not sure that the dataset is "imaginary", but what you're doing ] seems eminently sensible to me. I've been working on a little project ] that I hope to release shortly that aims to facilitate this kind of ] linking, especially where those no

Re: implied datasets

I think that this area of useful bridging sets of instance URIs is ripe for exploring and exploiting. I won't go into whether the April Fool's joke of the integers might actually be useful (note that dbpedia has quite a lot of URIs for numbers), but there will be many other "standard" URIs for t

Re: implied datasets

> > If one has one dataset (say) and wants to find other datasets that might be usefully combined with it to do some analysis, it would (I think) be useful to have something like this to help with the discovery. OK, but I'm not seeing is how this extra imaginary dataset helps with discovery, ei

Re: implied datasets

* [2011-05-23 13:17:28 -0400] glenn mcdonald écrit: ] > ] > That may be so but it misses the point. The point is there is a field, ] > be it a URI or a literal however modelled, that can be used to join ] > between two datasets. This join field is "hidden" in that there exists ] > no (known) data

Re: implied datasets

> > That may be so but it misses the point. The point is there is a field, > be it a URI or a literal however modelled, that can be used to join > between two datasets. This join field is "hidden" in that there exists > no (known) dataset that contains all possible values it can take on. > Hmm. I'

Re: implied datasets

* [2011-05-23 11:34:56 -0400] glenn mcdonald écrit: ] It seems to me that this is another demonstration of confusion that wouldn't ] happen if we all understood RDF IDs to be pure identifiers that belong to ] the graph representation of a dataset and nothing else. ISSN numbers are not ] graph-nod

Re: implied datasets

> > Here's why. In library world, perhaps more than elsewhere, it is > common to do things like this, > > a bibo:Jornal; >blah blah blah some descriptions; >owl:sameAs . > > This is because there are standard identifiers for lots of things that > are foun

Re: implied datasets

Hi William, On 23 May 2011 14:01, William Waites wrote: > ... > Then for each dataset that I have that uses the links to this space, I > count them up and make a linkset pointing at this imaginary dataset. > > Obviously the same strategy for anywhere there exist some kind of > standard identifier

implied datasets

This is the RDF version of the question I just sent to the CKAN list [1]. It is somewhat a policy question and I believe that in RDF terms the open world means the answer is basically, "yes you can say what you want". Consider the diagram here, http://semantic.ckan.net/group/?group=http://ckan.