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

The 5 stars path

From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:32:12 -0300
Message-ID: <CA+pXJig=arCMk7igF5UoXJFeWf0=O_tprX009nCYpJjwCe3_zA@mail.gmail.com>
To: DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,

I will start my comment using an example:

Someone publish a page where there are links to 2 files:
a csv file with a dataset;
a text file that explains the structure of the dataset, in natural language
(metadata).

In the page there are a lot of metadata provided in natural language, as
for example, an overview of the dataset, license, organization, version,
creator, rights, etc...

At the same time, the page has an embedded dcat instance using rdfa where
there are info about the dataset, the distribution, etc.

What I want to say is that we have here the metadata concept mixed with
semantic web concepts, and it is a way of publishing data that, if all the
things are well described, could be very useful to the society.

In this dataset publishing I can see the idea of publishing metadata and
using standard vocabularies, but is not a LD dataset.

What I was discussing in the last meeting is: will we support in the
document the idea that the best way to publish is LD. I am not saying that
I am against or not the idea. I am favorable to LD. But we should
differentiate the idea of a Best Practice of a non LD dataset of the idea
of an implicit Best Practice to go to a LD dataset, that is what the 5
stars scale says.

Maybe is too much care with the words, sorry about this.

Best Regards,
Laufer

-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .
Received on Friday, 20 March 2015 14:32:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 20 March 2015 14:32:41 UTC