Re: document biased toward linked data practices

Hi all,

We agree that we should consider a broader scope in the BP document instead
of focusing on Linked Data. As mentioned before, we should keep BPs
independent, and on the possible approach to implementation be more
specific.

When possible and necessary, we may propose possible approaches for
implementation that use Linked Data and Semantic Web concepts, like RDF and
ontologies.

The LD bias that Carlos mentioned in the current version of the BP document
concerns mainly the vocabulary section as well as when we propose the use
of some specific vocabularies. However, as said before, it shouldn't be a
problem to propose the use of specific technologies in the possible
approach to implementation section. It is important that we try to show HOW
to use them when publishing data on the Web.

@Yaso, just to make it more clear, could you please tell us, in your
opinion, which use cases are based or have requirements based on linked
data?

Thanks!
Bernadette, Caroline and Newton

2015-03-19 11:11 GMT-03:00 yaso@nic.br <yaso@nic.br>:

>
> That's precisely what I'm proposing, Steve, sorry if I wasn't perfectly
> clear :-)
> I'm gonna try again:
>
> The issue says:
> "The technological bias in several parts of the document (outside
> implementation techniques), and specially in the vocabularies section."
>
> Carlos made a copy [1] of the BP doc at google and there are many comments
> there made by others that can make the document more general to other
> approaches than LD, and the thread goes on until this email [2], where he
> says that:
>
> "nobody is trying to censor LD here in any way. The discussion is just
> about what're the right places and sections in the document to make
> reference to specific technologies "
>
> I could say that I'm not trying to censor non LD data also. What I am
> saying is that:
>
> 1: YES, the document has a technological bias towards LD;
> 2: that's because we have many use cases that are, or aims to be about
> open linked data, or need to be, or have requisites to be linked data;
> 3: we could think in new use cases, or take chance on some use cases that
> we already have - like the one about data enrichment - or collect some
> about microdata, dataspaces or web APIs to work on open data that is not
> Linked data nor needs to be.
>
> If we can't think on use cases like that, to make requirements about this
> situations and derive Best practices on that, then we may have to admit
> that we will follow linked data and that is it.
>
> Independent of our solution I think we should make more specific
> recommendations on LD to make the document more valuable, agreeing with
> Makx's point. Maybe we need TF to one or another solution.
>
> salut
> yaso
>
>
> 1 -
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ecwweAM5t4UVFEjcXnFhXmCUBnRDvwZ1smRLtiKkBEI/edit
> 2 - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Feb/0081.html
>
>
>
>
> On 03/19/2015 10:07 AM, Steven Adler wrote:
>
> Yaso,
>
> I would urge the group to retain the linked data we have in the BP
> document and to focus on adding BP recommendations for Open Data that is
> not linked to create the right balance.
>
> That way what we create is not subtractive of the good work we have
> already done.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for "yaso@nic.br" ---03/18/2015 10:48:05
> PM---Hi all Thanks Carlos, Annette, Augusto and Eric for your co]
> "yaso@nic.br" <yaso@nic.br> ---03/18/2015 10:48:05 PM---Hi all Thanks
> Carlos, Annette, Augusto and Eric for your considerations.
>
>
>
>    From:
>
>
> "yaso@nic.br" <yaso@nic.br> <yaso@nic.br> <yaso@nic.br>
>
>    To:
>
>
> "Augusto Herrmann" <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>
> <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>, "Public DWBP WG" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
> <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
>
>    Date:
>
>
> 03/18/2015 10:48 PM
>
>    Subject:
>
>
> Re: document biased toward linked data practices
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
> Thanks Carlos, Annette, Augusto and Eric for your considerations.
>
> @Augusto, we are discussing this because there is an open issue to resolve.
>
> For me it is clear that there is a lot of linked data at the BP document,
> even more clear now with the comments. If we don't want that, then we have
> to work towards new use cases or situations where we best practices for
> data on the web can be useful.
>
> @Carlos, I wrote the BP on RESTful APIs (or part of it) because I noticed
> that it was not mentioned an that there was not even an specific use case
> for that, although I inserted the "data access" as the requirement for it.
>
> I think that maybe we should think in making an effort to cover more non
> linked data with new use cases, if we agree that the doc need it.
>
>
>
> Yaso
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Augusto Herrmann" <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>
> <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>
> To: "Public DWBP WG" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: document biased toward linked data practices
> Date: Wed, Mar 18, 2015 22:56
>
> +1 to Carlos, Eric and Annette.
>
> In my experience with open data projects, the feasibility of doing Linked
> Data is rare, that is in the few cases this is even a consideration.
>
> The fact is that modelling your business domain into a vocabulary has a
> cost. Even if it has a good ROI in the long run for the benefits in data
> integration and interoperbility, many resource starved OD initiative simply
> lack the resources for going that extra mile.
>
> I agree with Carlos that RESTful APIs are great examples of data deeply
> ingrained on the web, especially if they make good use of hypermedia
> (HATEOAS). The fact that search engines do voraciously index each
> individual resource in any such APIs is a testament to that.
>
> Actually I'm quite surprised to see this issue being discussed this far
> into the WG lifetime. I remember taking part in the initial conference
> calls and non-linked data seemed to me to have always been in scope -
> besides what's already written on the WG charter as Carlos and Annette
> mentioned.
>
> My 2c.
>
> Augusto
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
> <amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote:
>
> > +1 to Carlos. I would not like to see this group become focused only on
> > LOD. I think the charter[1] is clear that we are to consider more than
> > that.The preamble states,
> >
> > "There are disparities between different developers too: for many, data
> > means CSV files and APIs, for others it means linked data and the two
> sides
> > are often disparaging of each other.”
> >
> > The mission is also clear, especially point 3:
> >
> >    1. to develop the *open data ecosystem*, facilitating better
> >    communication between developers and publishers;
> >    2. to provide *guidance to publishers* that will improve consistency
> >    in the way data is managed, thus promoting the re-use of data;
> >    3. to *foster trust in the data* among developers, whatever technology
> >    they choose to use, increasing the potential for genuine innovation.
> >
> > -Annette
> >
> > [1] *http://www.w3.org/2013/05/odbp-charter*
> <http://www.w3.org/2013/05/odbp-charter>
> > --
> > Annette Greiner
> > NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> > 510-495-2935
> >
> > On Mar 18, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Carlos Iglesias <contact@carlosiglesias.es>
> <contact@carlosiglesias.es>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 15 March 2015 at 22:58, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
> <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > In my experience I'd say many, otherwise we should be currently seeing
> > more metadata and open formats in practice and that's not happening.
> > There is nothing wrong with BPs being quite simple and evident. The good
> > thing of BPs is precisely their guiding and reference character.
> > In addition, there is nothing preventing us from going deeper through
> > implementation techniques with specific technologies.
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > Then you can provide specific implementation techniques for those.
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, asking for LOD support is usual when you work on a LOD project or
> > environment and quite the opposite when not. Have been working on around
> 50
> > different OD projects during the last 6 years and I think that maybe just
> > 10% asked for LOD techs. As another example I have recently participated
> in
> > the evaluation of 300+ proposals for OD based businesses and only roughly
> > between 2-3% were planning to be using LOD at any extent. In general I
> > noted that LOD is something people is not usually screaming for except in
> > some specific scenarios.
> >
> > 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.
> >>
> >
> > This looks more like a quite specific guide than a best practices
> > document, no?
> > I think this would be a great idea as an additional WG note with an
> > implementation example, but not as a replacement of the BPs themselves.
> >
> >
> >>  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.
> >>
> >
> > I think some of the most popular recs at W3C in the past were such
> > "general advice" e.g. WCAG, MWBPs...
> > I think that making BPs generic and tech neutral is a BP itself.
> > I think that having good generic BPs is also compatible with much more
> > specific advice (in the form of implementation techniques).
> > I think we should be only focusing on LOD if we agree first on modifying
> > the charter and the document name and scope.
> >
> > Best,
> >  CI.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Makx.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *De:* 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*
> <http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>


-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------