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

Re: The 5 stars path

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 08:47:12 +0000
Message-ID: <550E8190.2080309@w3.org>
To: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
CC: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
I've just been reading through Friday's minutes and I see that this was 
the hot topic of the day. As ever, I'm sorry I wasn't able to be there.

Let me add my 2 cents.

LD forms a small part of the available data on the Web. It would be 
silly of us to push for everyone to convert their data into perfectly 
linked 5 star data before they make it available publicly or behind a 
pay-wall of some kind.

What we *can* do IMO is:

- Promote the publication of human readable metadata as Laufer has 
described;

- promote the publication of machine readable metadata and then show how 
this can be (and is) done with RDF using DCAT as an example;

- promote the publication of structural metadata which, for CSV at 
least, we have a very clear route - use the CSV on the Web work;

- if Eric and Annette can provide similar examples for NetCDF that would 
be terrific (I'm out of my depth here).

- We can leave it to the Spatial Data on the Web WG to handle spatial 
stuff (as they are leaving some of their generic issues to this group).

As an aside, the CSV WG has resolved its issues now and is expecting to 
publish pretty much the stable version of its specs in the first week of 
April.

If you publish data in your favourite format + structural metadata in 
whatever format goes with that (and the CSV WG is using JSON for its 
metadata) then you are providing a route through which your users can 
readily create 5 star data if they so wish. They may or may not use LD 
themselves but the concept behind it is, I hope, clear enough to readers?

 From what I've read of Friday and the list since then, I dare t hope 
this is in line with the general mood of the WG?

Phil.



On 20/03/2015 18:09, Laufer wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2015 08:47:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 22 March 2015 08:47:10 UTC