[open-linguistics] Linguistic LOD cloud - help needed, now is the time to submit your data set

Fri Aug 3 09:03:57 UTC 2012

Dear all,
there seems to be some confusion with regard to documentation practice.  
Some members of this list are closer to the inner workings of the  
LOD-cloud than others and are aware of many implicit assumptions/shared  
knowledge other people ignore.
It would probably be good to list the relevant documents and processes  
again. RTFM is OK, but you have to no where the M is.
Finally, I would like to commend John for bein BOLD in the wikipedia  
sense. Not knowing the precise rules should not ban anyone from  
contributing, and I would like to ask John to continue contributing with  
whatever knowledge of the rules and procedures he has or lacks.
Best
Sebastian N

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:24:49 +0200, Sebastian Hellmann  
<hellmann at informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Am 02.08.2012 15:19, schrieb John McCrae:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I decided to do an independent evaluation of what was in the LLOD, to
>> identify what needs to be done, and found that the situation isn't  
>> perhaps
>> as bad as the previous email suggests.
> Sorry, John. The only thing you did is soften the criteria for
> inclusion. That doesn't make the data better. You even went so far as to
> disregard the criteria superimposed by the current practice:
> http://richard.cyganiak.de/2007/10/lod/#how-to-join
> CKAN entry is required, if not then "fail".
>
>> My notes are here:
>>
>> http://wiki.okfn.org/Working_Groups/linguistics/Resources_in_the_cloud
> Well, that is a nice table, but rather pointless. Please concentrate on
> maintaining the group resources at:
> http://thedatahub.org/en/group/linguistics
> or
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlMk5ouIspH1dGx1R1Rnd1ZXX0xmLXppSWFrcm0wNFE&authkey=CJi9u78D&authkey=CJi9u78D#gid=0
>
>>
>> The following resources appeared to be acceptable (i.e., they exist,  
>> have
>> RDF, contain some useful data and had links to some other resource or to
>> data categories)
> softening criteria
>>
>>     - Cornetto
>>     - WOLD
>>     - W3C WordNet
>>     - DBPediaWiktionary
>>     - LemonWiktionary*
>>     - LemonWordNet*
>>     - Open Data Thesaurus**
>>     - DBPedia**
>>     - YAGO
>>     - Localized DBPedias**
>>     - OpenCyc
>>     - GOLD***
>>     - ISOcat***
>>     - Lexvo
>>     - Lingvoj
>>     - Glottolog/LingDoc*
>>
>> * Sebastian has indicated that these resources may be buggy. There are  
>> no
>> issues here <http://code.google.com/p/mlode/issues/list> that make them
>> unusable however so I count them as good.
> LemonWiktionary and Glottolog have 18 issues total, which is good.
> Sebastian Nordhoff already fixed 4 bugs for Glottolog, making it much
> better and removing the "fail".
> Let's work on the data, not lowering expectations.
>> ** DBpedia and Open Data Thesaurus are not primarily linguistics  
>> resources,
>> should they be included in the LLOD cloud?
> My definition would include "anything that is useful for NLP" as well.
> Besides you have redirects.
>> *** IMHO categories and schematic information resources are vital part  
>> of
>> the LLOD cloud, I can't understand why Sebastian suggests they should  
>> not
>> be included!?
> copying behaviour from http://lod-cloud.net/
> We can do schemas extra, if you want to.
>> The following resources need to be entered into CKAN: (6/27)
>> <snip>
>>
>> The following resources should be removed (at least for the time being)
>> from the cloud diagram: (5/27)
>> <snip>
>>
>> The following resources need attention: (4/27)
>> <snip>
> That is a total of 15, I counted 18.
>
>> So In summary out of the 27 bubbles in the LLOD cloud 17 are usable and  
>> 4
>> can likely be quickly fixed. I have attached a version of the LLOD cloud
>> with these results attached. Please edit the Wiki page if you feel I  
>> have
>> got something wrong.
> Please concentrate on editing CKAN  or the Google spreadsheet and submit
> your data set to Google code
> We are working on creating updates of the cloud based on CKAN.
> @John, please read:
> http://richard.cyganiak.de/2007/10/lod/#how-to-join
> http://wiki.okfn.org/Wg/linguistics/llod#How_to_contribute
> LemonWordnet for example needs 50 links to an existing resource. Jimmy
> O'Regan was so kind to create that for you:
> http://code.google.com/p/mlode/issues/detail?id=34
>
> Kind regards,
> Sebastian
>