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

Re: document biased toward linked data practices

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias.moro@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:04:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAa1XzkC4czjrRKCf_0jfw3PD7FX7qPAPeBgCiike+-yzxjerQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yaso <yaso@nic.br>
Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hello Yaso, everyone.

I'm not sure on the context of this as I was missing last teleconference.
Still, some first reactions below:

El 13/03/2015 14:29, "yaso@nic.br"
> 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?

IMO we could indeed think in may cases where data on the web is not Linked
Data, just think about the multiple REST APIs examples we have. Also there

Finally, if the use cases we are working with may be currently biased then
I don't think that introducing the same bias in the BPs document could be
any good solution. I'm going to use the WCAG example one more time:

- Tech independent PBs;

- Multiple tech possible implementations;

- The best a11y comes when you fulfill all BPs;

- Still, you could be fulfilling just a certain subgroup of BPs
individually and that will be also an improvement;

That's how I foresee our BPs should be working as well. A totally different
discussion is if we want to recharter the group objectives for a Linked
Data BPs only focus because the current members feel more confortable with

> 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."

Good, but I don't see what you want to infer from this as there are several
means for that. On the other hand, that's just an intro and we can put
there whatever we prefer. Is the group charter what should be driving the
group work, not the document intro.

> 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" :-)

I think that's not so simple. Unless we decide to modify the charter scope
(that explicitly reads "...will be agnostic about the technologies") the
document will remain biassed.

> 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?).

Again, e.g. full REST APIs. Not only far from impossible but also quite
frequent. Could please anyone explain why these could not be considered
"data on the web"?



 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 23:05:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 18 March 2015 23:05:23 UTC