Re: [dwbp] Suggestions to solve the 144 issue (#117)

Moving discussion to our list...

I like "...whilst it recommends the use of Linked Data, it also promotes 
best practices for data on the web in formats such as CSV and JSON."

Given the current discussion about things like PDFs, audio files and so 
on, we could extend it event further to say

"...whilst it recommends the use of Linked Data, it also promotes best 
practices for data on the web in formats such as CSV and JSON as well as 
information published for human consumption in documents, audio and 
video files etc."

A big -1 to Carlos' comments on "Identifiers not URIs." The Web works on 
URIs. Those are the identifiers we care about. Yes, we have to cope with 
other identifiers - people do love their DOIs and find them useful for 
example - but they're just strings. URIs are defreferencable, other 
identifiers are not (DOIs only become dereferencable if you convert them 
to URIs; Quad Erat Demonstrandum).

So in my view the current text is right, i.e.

Data Identification
How can unique identifiers be provided for data resources?
How should URIs be designed and managed for persistence?

There are more comments on URIs later in the doc with which I disagree 
equally strongly. This is the W3C WG on Data on the Web, not data 
anywhere else. If it hasn't got a URI, it's not on the Web and is 
therefore out of scope.

On the term 'vocabularies' - I think Antoine answered Carlos well but 
I'd be happy with some sort of expansion, such as:

Data Vocabularies
How can existing terms, vocabularies and data models be used to provide 
semantic interoperability?
How can a new vocabulary be designed if needed?

Likewise, Carlos objects to: "... Appropriate security measures should 
also account for secure authentication and use of HTTPS"

HTTPS is the secure protocol on the Web. Anything not HTTP(s) is not on 
the Web and is probably out of scope for W3C.

Overall, Carlos, it seems to me that you're trying to remove the Web 
component altogether. As you'd expect, I strongly disagree.

As we've discussed, data comes in all sorts of formats, but we're 
concerned with using the Web as best as we can - and in many cases that 
*does* mean using LD technologies and/or RESTful APIs that return JSON. 
That is how you do data on the Web and we mustn't be afraid to say so. 
If all you're talking about is shifting some bytes from A to B in a 
process that could just as well be completed by exchanging USB sticks 
then that's a perfectly valid operation - but it's not data on the Web.

Phil.

On 31/03/2015 16:11, Yaso wrote:
> I made several suggestions, although many questions raised by Carlos Iglesias still remains at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ecwweAM5t4UVFEjcXnFhXmCUBnRDvwZ1smRLtiKkBEI/edit#
>
> If not merged, please submit feedback :-)
> You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
>
>    https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/117
>
> -- Commit Summary --
>
>    * Updating doc to solve issues 144 #1 comment from Carlos Iglesias
>    * Changing URI's by identifiers to solve 144 issue - Carlos Iglesias Suggestion
>    * Suggesting rewriting to solve 144 issue
>    * rewriting to solve 144 at 8.8 Sensitive Data
>    * Suggesting rewriting to solve 144
>
> -- File Changes --
>
>      M bp.html (28)
>
> -- Patch Links --
>
> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/117.patch
> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/117.diff
>
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/117
>

-- 


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

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 17:04:06 UTC