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

Re: document biased toward linked data practices

From: <yaso@nic.br>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:00:53 -0300
Message-ID: <5509D975.3010402@nic.br>
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Hi all

My comments are about the issue that says that the doc is biased towards 
LInked Data. I intent to agree with Makx, and I think whenever is the 
case to recommend the use of linked data approaches, we should do it. 
Maybe if we all agree that rely upon ld concepts is in our scope we can 
strengthen the power of our document even more.

@laufer, I did not suggested throwing out our job, just reinforce it!

Though I also think that we could explore the world of non liked data to 
recommend how to transform this data in Data on the Web, just like Steve 
and Eric said. I've been working on a rough translate to pt-br of the 
document, which is still in progreess [1], and I noticed that we based 
our use cases doc in use cases of the LD world and as a consequence now 
we have a BP doc towards Linked Data - which its not a bad situation, I 

Maybe if we use the call for the second round of use cases to collect 
cases that do not rely on Linked Data concepts we can increment the BP 
doc to embrace more of the mentioned World that Steve said :-)

How does it sound fot the group?



On 03/17/2015 12:56 PM, Steven Adler wrote:
> 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,
> Steve
> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
> Inactive hide details for Eric Stephan ---03/17/2015 11:49:59 AM---I 
> think that there is a way to describe best practices for dEric Stephan 
> ---03/17/2015 11:49:59 AM---I think that there is a way to describe 
> best practices for data in the web generally and then touch
>     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
> 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_ 
> <mailto: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_
>     <mailto: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> [mailto:_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 Wednesday, 18 March 2015 20:00:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 18 March 2015 20:00:14 UTC