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

Re: document biased toward linked data practices

From: Steven Adler <adler1@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:56:10 -0400
To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Cc: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, "Yasodara Cordova (yaso@nic.br)" <yaso@nic.br>
Message-ID: <OF8C89E010.BC10214D-ON85257E0B.00573389-85257E0B.00578A52@us.ibm.com>
i agree.  We certainly want people to use Linked Data, and we can encourage
its use through examples, but we must realize that over 90% of the world is
not using Linked Data on the web and we must address the world as it is to
have a chance to influence it to change.

Best Regards,


Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"

| From:      |
  |Eric Stephan <ericphb@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>                       |
| Date:      |
  |03/17/2015 11:49 AM                                                                                                                               |
| Subject:   |
  |Re: document biased toward linked data practices                                                                                                  |

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

[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,

  2015-03-15 18:58 GMT-03:00 Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>:


   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.


   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


   [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/144

   [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open

  .  .  .  .. .  .
  .        .   . ..
  .     ..       .

(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 15:56:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 March 2015 15:56:54 UTC