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

Re: The 5 stars path

From: Deirdre Lee <deirdre@derilinx.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 01:16:37 +0000
Message-ID: <55135DF5.8090708@derilinx.com>
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Hi,

Great discussion on Linked vs. non-Linked Data. I agree with latest 
comments on this thread saying both should live side-by-side (I'm 
paraphrasing :))

csv, json, REST APIs, etc. are the bread and butter of Data on the Web, 
and aren't going away anytime soon.

Yet to achieve the interoperability and interlinking that we all want, 
standards and vocabs are very important - dcat, prov-o, foaf, sioc, 
etc., which all happen to be in RDF

So, to go back to a point Makx made in his original post to biased 
Linked Data thread "Great, but what people really want to know is, how? 
And they want to see how others are using PROV-O in practice"

This is what I'd look for in best practices - how can I make good 
data-on-the-web choices, use the defacto standards and vocabs, many of 
which are in RDF, but use them side-by-side with my non-Linked Data 
technologies - my csv datasets and systems that use REST to access data, 
not SPARQL.

I guess I'm saying, I agree we should stay general for BPs, but give 
some practical help along with our recommendations to ensure people can 
get the benefits of Linked Data when useful.

Cheers,
Deirdre

On 24/03/2015 14:18, Steven Adler wrote:
>
> Rating a dataset is only valuable if records within the dataset have 
> ratings whose sum or average validates the dataset rating.  That is, 
> there has to be provenance to the ratings.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
>
> Inactive hide details for Bernadette Farias Lóscio ---03/24/2015 
> 10:11:38 AM---Hi all, Thanks for the great discussion!Bernadette 
> Farias Lóscio ---03/24/2015 10:11:38 AM---Hi all, Thanks for the great 
> discussion!
>
>
>     From: 
>
> 	
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
>
>     To: 
>
> 	
> Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
>
>     Cc: 
>
> 	
> Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, Christophe 
> Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>, DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
>
>     Date: 
>
> 	
> 03/24/2015 10:11 AM
>
>     Subject: 
>
> 	
> Re: The 5 stars path
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the great discussion!
>
> I like the idea of having a star rating discussion, but we need to be 
> aware that publishing data on the Web is more than just publishing 
> data and metadata. It also concerns issues like data access and feedback.
>
> I've been thinking a lot about this rating system and it would be 
> great to consider all aspects related to data on the Web (ex: data 
> format, metadata, identifiers, data access, feedback, versioning...), 
> but I'm bot sure if this is the best choice. Maybe, we can have a 
> rating system based just on data and metadata, which is similar to the 
> initial proposal of Phil.
>
> Cheers,
> Bernadette
>
> 2015-03-22 18:38 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <_ericphb@gmail.com_ 
> <mailto:ericphb@gmail.com>>:
>
>     Wow what a wonderful thread to read.  Thank you Phil!  Many many
>     thanks for this wonderful note of clarity!
>
>     >>if Eric and Annette can provide similar examples for NetCDF that
>     would be terrific (I'm out of my depth here).
>
>     Yes I think we can show this quite easily.  Just off the top of my
>     heads.
>
>     NetCDF:
>        - is an open format for storing multi-dimensional data streams
>     [NETCDF]
>        - can be annotated with self describing metadata (called
>     attributes)
>        - has existing conventions for representing different forms of
>     data.  E.g. CF convention.
>        - has a CF vocabulary [CFNAMES] for curated climate and
>     forecasting terminology.
>        - In addition the climate community within the Earth System
>     Grid (ESG) has adopted fully documented protocols [CMIP5] to show
>     how regional and climate model datasets must be organized so that
>     they can be inter-related to support regional and global climate
>     studies.
>       - Leverages existing ISO standards used in the geospatial,
>     dublin core, and metadata communities.
>        - Finally an ontology was developed by NASA JPL called SWEET
>     [SWEET], there is previous research showing how the CF terms can
>     inter-related.
>
>     I would submit that even without the ontology in terms of open
>     data, the climate community is already at 5 star.
>
>
>
>     Eric
>
>
>     References
>
>     [NETCDF] _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetCDF_
>     [CFNAMES]
>     _http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-standard-names/28/build/cf-standard-name-table.html_
>     [CMIP5] _http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/_
>     [SWEET] _https://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/_
>
>
>     On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Phil Archer <_phila@w3.org_
>     <mailto:phila@w3.org>> wrote:
>         We are in full agreement.
>
>         One of my hopes for this WG is that we can indeed lead people
>         to publish formats like CSV in the best way (i.e. with good
>         quality metadata) without them feeling somehow inferior.
>
>         If that leads us to define our own star rating system, I
>         wouldn't mind. Something like:
>
>         * It's available on the Web in an open format with a declared
>         licence (anything less is all but useless).
>
>         ** As level 1 with good quality discovery metadata (we might
>         refer to the DCAT Application profile work as an example).
>
>         *** All the above plus structural metadata in the relevant
>         format (e.g. CSV+ for CSV, VoID for RDF etc).
>
>         This doesn't include quality metrics (which it should), and
>         contact details (which it should) - but they might be defined
>         at level 2?
>
>         Maybe a start anyway.
>
>         Phil.
>
>         On 22/03/2015 13:50, Laufer wrote:
>             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_
>             <mailto:christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
>             <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','_christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl_
>             <mailto: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_ <mailto: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_ <mailto: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_ <mailto: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_ <mailto: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_ <http://philarcher.org/>_
>                     __+44 (0)7887 767755_
>                     <tel:%2B44%20%280%297887%20767755>
>                     @philarcher1
>
>
>         -- 
>
>
>         Phil Archer
>         W3C Data Activity Lead_
>         __http://www.w3.org/2013/data/_
>         _
>         __http://philarcher.org_ <http://philarcher.org/>_
>         __+44 (0)7887 767755_ <tel:%2B44%20%280%297887%20767755>
>         @philarcher1 
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

-- 
----------------------------------------
Deirdre Lee, Director
Derilinx - Linked & Open Data Solutions
  
Web:      www.derilinx.com
Email:    deirdre@derilinx.com
Tel:      +353 (0)1 254 4316
Mob:      +353 (0)87 417 2318
Linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/
Twitter:  @derilinx
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 01:17:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 26 March 2015 01:17:13 UTC