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

The 5 stars path

From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:50:18 -0300
Message-ID: <CA+pXJign1q9kASLzNotQiuzA2h-g_zgNWveqH3Y02rnvSK+62Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
I agree, Phil.

What I want to reinforce is that it would be nice if we could make clear in
the document that 5 stars LD (or OD?) is not a scale of a dataset that is
well published in the web. We can have, for example, a "CSV dataset" (3
stars) more well published than a "LD dataset" (5 stars). Or, maybe, we can
avoid using the 5 stars when what we want to say is that a dataset is being
published in a CSV format.

If we say that one dataset is 3 stars and other is 5 stars, people have the
idea that the 5 one is better than the 3 one (as in reviews or hotels, for
example).

We probably will not define our own scale but I hope that our set of BPs
could help people to publish a  "Well Published Data on The Web".

Best Regards,
Laufer

Em domingo, 22 de março de 2015, Christophe Guéret <
christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl');>> escreveu:

> +1!
>
> Christophe
>
> --
> Sent with difficulties. Sorry for the brievety and typos...
> Op 22 mrt. 2015 08:47 schreef "Phil Archer" <phila@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 13:50:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 22 March 2015 13:50:47 UTC