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

Re: document biased toward linked data practices

From: <yaso@nic.br>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:25:25 -0300
Message-ID: <550B1495.4050900@nic.br>
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Dear Berna (and Newton and Caroline)


On 03/19/2015 12:21 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We agree that we should consider a broader scope in the BP document 
> instead of focusing on Linked Data.

Yes, I know that! So, we can assume that the issue is closed?

> 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.

Yes, indeed. My question is: should we propose implementations that do 
not use LD concepts also? (to diminish the bias cited on the issue? Or 
not?)

> 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?
There are 14 of our BP that *explicitly* cites Linked Data as principle 
in the applilcations and we have 25 use cases.
I can make a list if you want, but I think is not necessary...

yaso

>
> Thanks!
> Bernadette, Caroline and Newton
>
> 2015-03-19 11:11 GMT-03:00 yaso@nic.br <mailto:yaso@nic.br> 
> <yaso@nic.br <mailto: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"
>>
>>     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" <mailto: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" <mailto:yaso@nic.br> <yaso@nic.br>
>>     <mailto:yaso@nic.br>
>>
>>         To: 
>>
>>     	
>>     "Augusto Herrmann" <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>
>>     <mailto:augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>, "Public DWBP WG"
>>     <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> <mailto: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>
>>     <mailto:augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>
>>     To: "Public DWBP WG" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
>>     <mailto: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> <mailto: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_
>>     > --
>>     > Annette Greiner
>>     > NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>>     > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>>     > 510-495-2935 <tel:510-495-2935>
>>     >
>>     > On Mar 18, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Carlos Iglesias
>>     <contact@carlosiglesias.es> <mailto:contact@carlosiglesias.es>
>>     > wrote:
>>     >
>>     > Hi,
>>     >
>>     > On 15 March 2015 at 22:58, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
>>     <mailto: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> [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_
>>     >>
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > --
>>     > ---
>>     >
>>     > Carlos Iglesias.
>>     > Internet & Web Consultant.
>>     > +34 687 917 759 <tel:%2B34%20687%20917%20759>
>>     > contact@carlosiglesias.es <mailto:contact@carlosiglesias.es>
>>     > @carlosiglesias
>>     > _http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en_
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 18:24:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 19 March 2015 18:24:40 UTC