- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:52:12 -0700
- To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
- Cc: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Also, to disambiguate a little, when I say graph data, I don't mean "data shown in a graph". I mean data representing a mathematical graph, as in genome assembly data, or network connection data, a connection matrix. -Annette On Aug 14, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote: > I think they are particular representations of data. If you publish a cool 3D rendering of some data, I think that is enriching it, but the data are the individual observations (vectors or voxels or whatever) used to make the representation. For molecules, I would say that a structured listing of the atoms and their bonds is the data. Otherwise, every visualization is data, which one can certainly argue in the definitional sense, but I think is beyond our scope. > -Annette > > On Aug 14, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote: > >> Annette, >> >> You hit the problems spot on: >> >>> I'm trying not to rule out things like graph data. >>> I think 3D models are out of scope, whether of sculptures or molecules. If >> the >>> model is broken down into data, then it is in scope. >> >> To be clear, I wasn't talking about paper and glue 3D models, but about >> digital representations of objects and phenomena in space. How can you say >> that is not 'data'? >> >> Makx. >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 14 August 2015 14:52:44 UTC