Re: Piggy-Bank feedback

From: Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:44:50 -0500

DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:

> I think that dealing with untyped nodes in proper RDF should be a higher
> priority than dealing with non-RDF, because Piggy-Bank already goes so far
> in breaking the chicken/egg cycle of
> not-enough-RDF-data-out-there/no-good-apps-to-take-advantage-of-RDF-data. If
> can find triples in an RDF file, then
> Piggy-Bank should be able to do something with them.

I don't think it's hard to stop PB from harvesting untyped nodes, the
problem is what do you do with them, I mean, in what category you place
them in!

We might have a "misc" category where all the untyped stuff ends up
being.... but honestly, I think it's a lot better, at this stage, to
kinda "push" people to type their data rather than adjusting PB to
digest their unflavored one ;-)

Suggestions welcome, anyway.

Received on Wed Feb 02 2005 - 20:44:23 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:39:17 EDT