W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-comments@w3.org > October 2015

Re: Webby Data

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:15:25 -1000
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, public-dwbp-comments@w3.org
Cc: "Tandy, Jeremy" <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
Message-ID: <561EB7DD.2050002@berkeley.edu>
hello phil.

On 2015-10-14 08:48, Phil Archer wrote:
> In don't disagree with any of what you say, as I imagine others won't
> either. The problem is the usual one of scope and group capacity.
> Splitting datasets up into different sections, linked by meaningful
> relationships etc. is going to be well beyond the ken of most people for
> whom saving a spreadhseet as a CSV file is a major break from the norm.
> It's that end of the spectrum we're aiming at here.

i think i understand, and it's good to aim for that end. but i still 
think that at least pointing out what the most essential things are *if* 
people want to actually be webby, that would be useful. if you never 
talk about hypermedia, then you're really not talking a whole lot about 
the web; you'll be simply giving guidelines for e-publishing of data. 
which is not a bad thing to do, of course, but if people go by document 
title and look for guidance how to be webby, the document should at 
least point them in the right direction.

> I really think the ideas you, Ruben, Markus and others express around
> hypermedia, including the excellent work on Hydra, need a separate WG to
> take it forward properly. Linking off to something else would be good
> here for DWBP. It's for the WG, under the guidance of the chairs, not
> me, to decide whether they wish to pursue the idea of a Note on the
> topic but I'm going to go all W3C staff on you here (you know what I'm
> going to say before I say it).

hydra was just one example, of course, and i think that the spec should 
be agnostic to specific metamodels and thus hydra should only be one 
thing to mention (Atom and Collection+JSON could be others for those who 
prefer to use other metamodels).

> But I think the DWBP as currently constituted and chartered would have
> difficulty taking the work forward itself (as would the SDW WG btw).

violent agreement here, and i certainly did not want to say that DWBP 
should take over hydra. i merely suggested to mention it as a way to do 
hypermedia for those using RDF, so that people don't (have to) reinvent 
the wheel.

> Meanwhile I'd be grateful if you could offer such edits as are required
> to correct this paragraph and to meet the necessary without getting into
> a full blown detail about the sufficient:
>
> These ideas are at the heart of the 5 Stars of Linked Data where one
> data point links to another, and of Hypermedia where links may be to
> further data or to services (or more generally 'affordances') that act
> on or relate to the data in some way. Examples include a bug reporting
> mechanisms, processors, a visualization engine, a sensor, an actuator
> etc. In both Linked Data and Hypermedia, the emphasis is put on the
> ability for machines to traverse from one resource to another following
> links that express relationships.

i was trying to find this in 
https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/gh-pages/bp.html but couldn't; would 
you please point me to the right place? i need to see the context to 
make some edits. thanks!

> As for a better home than GitHub for your doc, I'll enquire internally
> whether I can work with you to turn it into a Team Submission or
> something similar.

sounds good, thanks! cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2015 20:15:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 14 October 2015 20:15:55 UTC