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

Re: document biased toward linked data practices

From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:29:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMFz4jgmvEEMCV6YDPiVt55q=T62-bB0=LfoicaayLomj=iSkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Cc: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>, "Yasodara Cordova (yaso@nic.br)" <yaso@nic.br>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
I think that there is a way to describe best practices for data in the web
generally and then touch on concrete illustrations.  It may be that these
illustrations are heavily biased to linked data, I feel it is better to
address data on the web more broadly than exclude a large segment of the
web population who does not use linked data.

The provenance best practice is an excellent example of how illustrations
can be made using PROV-O.  This particular vocabulary also has translations
in JSON and XML to accommodate other user communities.  An illustration
could be made using PROV-O with references to the PROV-JSON and PROV-XML.

If we did only focus on linked data how do we differentiate ourselves from
[1]  [2] ?

I'd like for our working group best practices to remain focused on
addressing the broader picture of linked and non-linked data on the web.


Eric S


References
[1]  http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Main_Page
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Main_Page



On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:

> Hi, All,
>
> This will be a huge problem for the group. I am not so sure of giving up
> of our work. Even if we focus only in LD we always could say that the
> document will be incomplete.
>
> It is not a technical standard recommendation like others in W3C. We must
> find a way of writing a document that could help people to publish, in
> terms on general recommendations. I do not think that this general
> orientation has no usefulness. It is one of the challenges of the group to
> find that blend, between the technical and the informal text.
>
> Best Regards,
> Laufer
>
> 2015-03-15 18:58 GMT-03:00 Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>:
>
> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I wasn’t able to be on the call so I am not entirely sure in what context
>> Yaso made this comment, but I have been thinking along the same lines. It
>> seems to me that the current best practices try to take a fairly general
>> view, and maybe that is not good.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we try to define best practice for any type of data and any type of
>> technology, we’ll end up in very general statements like “provide metadata”
>> and “provide data in open formats”. How useful is that? How many people in
>> the world are going to say: o gosh, I hadn’t thought of that? I’d say
>> no-one.
>>
>>
>>
>> For example we now say in Best Practice 7: Provide data provenance
>> information: Use the Provenance Ontology [PROV-O] to describe data
>> provenance. Great, but what people really want to know is, how? And they
>> want to see how others are using PROV-O in practice. Or in Best Practice 3:
>> Use standard terms to define metadata: Metadata is best provided using RDF
>> vocabularies. There is nothing actionable in that advice, which means that
>> no-one is going to do anything with it, unless they already know how to do
>> that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe it would be more useful if we did indeed focus on Linked Open Data
>> – in some of the work that I have done, I noted that best practices for LOD
>> is something that people are screaming for. Maybe we should limit this work
>> to cover advice for publishing tabular data using the DataCube vocabulary
>> and how to use DCAT for that kind of datasets, with good examples of
>> existing applications and Application Profiles of DataCube and DCAT, with
>> additional advice on when and how to use PROV, VOID, VOAF – again with good
>> examples from existing implementations to show how it can be done.
>>
>>
>>
>> So in summary, I think that the more specific these best practices are,
>> the more useful they are going to be. I understand this is completely the
>> opposite of what Carlos was arguing, but I don’t think people are going to
>> be excited about general advice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Makx.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *De:* yaso@nic.br [mailto:yaso@nic.br]
>> *Enviado el:* 13 March 2015 15:30
>> *Para:* Public DWBP WG
>> *Asunto:* document biased toward linked data practices
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>>
>> About what I said today at the end of the call:
>>
>> If we can't think in use cases where Data on the Web is not also Linked
>> Data, shouldn't we agree that this Best Practices Document can and need to
>> be biased towards Linked Data Best Practices Document?
>>
>> The BPs doc says at the intro: "The best practices described below have
>> been developed to encourage and enable the continued expansion of the Web
>> as a medium for the exchange of data."
>>
>> Imho, it closes the issue raised [1], helps us to decide about open
>> issues [2] and make things more clear about the scope of the deliverables -
>> and reinforces what phil said today about the "and if you don't want to use
>> it then don't complain" :-)
>>
>> Particularly, I think that we should keep our mind open, even that this
>> is to think in situations whether there can be data on the web that is not
>> linked data (not trivial, if not impossible?). Somehow this is connected
>> with conversations that we left behind, as well as the conversation about
>> protocols, for example. Maybe a note of the working group...
>>
>>
>> Salut,
>> Yaso
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/144
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open
>>
>
>
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 15:30:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 March 2015 15:30:04 UTC