W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > February 2015

Re: dwbp-ISSUE-144: There is a technological bias in several parts of the document [Best practices document(s)]

From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:12:47 -0200
Message-ID: <CA+pXJig9EUA0KnF448djuwTPVgkPa1vOnTJ=g0XOPz68vsVm5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Augusto Herrmann <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>
Cc: DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,

I agree with Augusto and would like to extend that the document states 3
questions that qualifies one thing to be a Data on the Web Best Practice.
The first one is: are specifically relevant to data published on the Web.

To publish metadata is not specifically relevant to data published on the
Web, as license, provenance and many others BPs in the document. They will
be relevant on the document because they have a special way to be done, and
in this sense we have a technological bias here. Without the technological
bias (the Web and eventually SW/LD) none of the BPs qualifies to our
document.

I also think that we have three main ways of publishing  data (extracted
from the 5 star LD):
without structure, with structure but no SW/LD, and SW/LD.

Some BPs applies to all the 3 types, but may not be identical. Others
applies only to, for example, SW/LD. I do not see a problem in pointing
when each BP applies to each way of publishing.

I also agree that the technological bias must be restricted to these
technologies: Web and SW/LD.

My 2 cents.

Best Regards,
Laufer

2015-02-03 15:56 GMT-02:00 Augusto Herrmann <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>:

> Dear Carlos, Bernadette, and all.
>
> We need to remember this document is about the best practices for data *on
> the web*, and not best practices for data on the internet.
>
> Considering this, IMO any technologies mentioned in the World Wide Web
> Architecture [1] document should NOT be technology agnostic on the DWBP.
> That includes terms such as HTTP, URLs and URIs, which should be
> specifically and explicitly addressed (and not just IDs and protocols in
> general).
>
> As for the technological bias regarding the SW and LD, how about moving
> the parts that are specific about those to separate, non-normative sections
> dedicated to publishing LD? I agree that they could be confusing for LD
> outsiders, but I still think those could be useful practices when
> publishing LD, and there's no point on having a separate "Linked Data on
> the Web Best Practices", or is there?
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
>
> Best regards,
> Augusto Herrmann
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br
> > wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Thank you very much for your detailed review of the BP document! We're
> gonna review the document again and we're gonna try to remove as much
> as possible the techonological bias that you mentioned in your
> comments. Some parts of the text were changed already, but we're gonna
> make another review.
>
> I have a comment about vocabularies and data models, but I'm gonna
> discuss this in a more appropriate thread, ok?
>
> Cheers,
> Bernadette
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015-01-30 10:51 GMT-03:00 Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias.moro@gmail.com
> >:
> > Hi Caroline and everyone,
> >
> > Sorry but the belated response, but I was heavily traveling during the
> week
> > (hint: ccy'ing to the personal email address may also help to get quicker
> > responses when you want to address someone specifically :)
> > I have just made a quick&dirty review to get you some pointers to
> specific
> > examples. You can see the results at
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ecwweAM5t4UVFEjcXnFhXmCUBnRDvwZ1smRLtiKkBEI/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > Sorry for the GDoc, I know it is not really friendly with the W3C
> archiving
> > policy, but this time I just needed to keep this time and effort wise in
> > order to keep advancing. Also this has been widely discussed before
> through
> > the mailing list and specific issues raised and tracked, so I expect Phil
> > may forgive me just for this time.
> >
> > Please note that I'm focusing only on the editorial tech-bias review
> here,
> > but my other points and issues raised before [1-6] still remain valid as
> > well (although looks like some have been already fixed).
> >
> > [1] - [
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0186.html]
> > [2] - [
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0225.html]
> > [3] - [
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0178.html]
> > [4] - [
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0183.html]
> > [5] - [
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0264.html]
> > [6] - [
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0177.html]
> >
> > Best,
> >  CI.
>



-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 12:13:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 10 February 2015 12:13:17 UTC