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

Re: The 5 stars path

From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:09:41 -0300
Message-ID: <CA+pXJiiH=aE5sQntAY9NOv9Zg6jNVuZMxi0LxZO2MaFCdLYbCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Cc: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Thank, you, Eric.

Abraços,
Laufer

2015-03-20 12:31 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>:

> Laufer and Bernadette,
>
> I raised an issue relating to this asking the question can we use 5 star
> as a metric and not a path? http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/148
>
> Eric S.
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Laufer,
>>
>> Thanks for the message! It is a very useful explanation!
>>
>> I fully agree with you: "In this dataset publishing I can see the idea of
>> publishing metadata and using standard vocabularies, but is not a LD
>> dataset."
>>
>> IMHO, we can use vocabularies to publish metadata, but we are not doing
>> linked data, i.e., there are no links between resources.
>>
>> I also agree that "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.".
>>
>> If we have a BP whose implementation proposes the use of the RDF model to
>> publish data, then we are moving towards the 5 stars. It is important to
>> note that, publishind data using the RDF model may be just one of the
>> proposed approaches for implementation, i.e, we may show other ways of
>> publishing data without using RDF.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bernadette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-03-20 11:32 GMT-03:00 Laufer <laufer@globo.com>:
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>>> .        .   . ..
>>> .     ..       .
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>> Centro de Informática
>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>


-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .
Received on Friday, 20 March 2015 18:10:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 20 March 2015 18:10:11 UTC