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

Re: document biased toward linked data practices

From: Carlos Iglesias <contact@carlosiglesias.es>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:34:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAa1XznTwORuWD9_YoXgZ_2XB9iggv_UrZ9JzcLg=4aL9S-5Yg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Cc: "yaso@nic.br" <yaso@nic.br>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Some more comments


>  >>>>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 think.
>
> That is a really interesting perspective, thank you for sharing this
> insight.
>

A good point indeed, but also a bad situation if our intention was to not
to produce a LD BPs document but a generic one.


> >>>>Maybe if we use the call for the second round of use cases to collect
> cases that do not rely on Linked Data concepts...
>
> In order to show variety in data on the web use cases I'm wondering now if
> we overlooked the boring and mundane use cases that may make up a majority
> of the data on the web. Did we "over think" use cases?
>

Definitively yes. If a significative number of the group members have
strong LOD backgrounds it is not strange at all that we end up with a
majority of LOD use cases at the expense of the "boring and mundane" ones

Best,
 CI.



> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:00 PM, yaso@nic.br <yaso@nic.br> wrote:
>
>>  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 think.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yaso
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://hackpad.com/Melhores-prticas-para-Dados-na-Web-KSy3LYVj2EU#:h=Melhores-práticas-para-dados-n
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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"
>>
>> [image: 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 d]Eric
>> 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> <ericphb@gmail.com>
>>
>>    To:
>>
>>
>> Laufer <laufer@globo.com> <laufer@globo.com>
>>
>>    Cc:
>>
>>
>> Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> <mail@makxdekkers.com>, "Yasodara
>> Cordova (yaso@nic.br)" <yaso@nic.br> <yaso@nic.br>, Public DWBP WG
>> <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> <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*
>> <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Main_Page>
>> [2] *http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Main_Page*
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Main_Page>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Laufer <*laufer@globo.com*
>> <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*
>>    <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* <yaso@nic.br> [mailto:*yaso@nic.br*
>>       <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*
>>       <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/144>
>>       [2] *http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open*
>>       <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    --
>>    .  .  .  .. .  .
>>    .        .   . ..
>>    .     ..       .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
---

Carlos Iglesias.
Internet & Web Consultant.
+34 687 917 759
contact@carlosiglesias.es
@carlosiglesias
http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en


picture
(image/gif attachment: 01-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 02-part)

Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 23:34:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 18 March 2015 23:34:45 UTC