RE: Use machine-readable standardized data formats / Use non-proprietary data formats

I agree we need a better definition of the scope. 

Limiting to structured data may be a sensible restriction. However, while it
would exclude images of paintings, highly structured 3D models of statues or
excavation sites would be in scope; it would exclude an unstructured .txt
file, but not the highly structured legislation or procurement data that is
already getting published as RDF in projects that I know of.

The problem we're having is that this discussion pops up every couple of
months and then dies out without a clear and citable decision having been
taken and recorded.

Makx.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Annette Greiner [mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov]
> Sent: 13 August 2015 21:48
> To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
> Cc: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Use machine-readable standardized data formats / Use non-
> proprietary data formats
> 
> I think we do need to scope it, but limiting it to tabular data is too
restrictive.
> Even CSV and JSON wouldn't qualify. If you meant structured data, I think
> that could work.
> - Annette
> 
> --
> Annette Greiner
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> 510-495-2935
>

Received on Thursday, 13 August 2015 20:30:51 UTC