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

Re: Webby Data

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:53:03 -1000
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "Tandy, Jeremy" <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
Message-ID: <5618373F.7010406@berkeley.edu>
hello phil.

thanks a lot for getting the discussion about "web data" going (again). 
we're probably getting closer, but i think we still have a bit of a 
difference in perspective, because "webby data" is a necessary but not 
sufficient condition to have hypermedia.

the difference is that hypermedia is not (only) about linking data 
(i.e., using "web data"), it's also about providing navigational 
affordances to get things done with that data. this means that the links 
are about *services* (or whatever you might call this).

as an example, if you have a dataset, there may be a link in it telling 
you where you can submit a bug report, if you think you found an error 
in it. that link is not between *data*, instead it is a navigational aid 
that allows somebody working with that data to submit a bug report (in 
the very same way as github and others allow you to create issues).

how/if such a reported bug actually affects the data (there may be some 
review process before any action is taken, and some bug reports may get 
rejected as part of this process) is hidden from the hypermedia view, 
and that's how it should be. all that matters for the client is that if 
it knows the "issue bug report here" link (i.e., it understands the link 
relation that qualifies that link), and understands the media type 
expected by the "reporting URI", then it can submit a bug report.

is that explanation good enough to explain the difference between "web 
data only" and the "web of hypermedia-driven services" that is happening 
on the regular web, and we also need to have for machine-oriented 

On 2015-10-09 11:28, Phil Archer wrote:
> We had a BP that said "use persistent URIs as identifiers". And then  it
> said *Datasets* must be identified by persistent URIs. What it didn't
> say was that data points within the data should also be URIs where
> possible.

like i said above, i think talking about "web data" would be a great 
first step (and thus i am very much in favor of it), but it's not the 
full hypermedia story, which is *not just* about data.

> @Erik - is that doc going to stay on GitHub? Any chance it might find a
> more stable/permanent home? I really don't like linking to GH in a W3C
> Rec track document.

i'd be more than happy to (a) move this to some other place, and/or (b) 
work on it to make it a bit easier to understand, or maybe add more 
examples. i am open for suggestions what might be a better home for it. 
for now i thought that maybe github is not such a bad place, at least as 
long as this is mostly intended to be a starting point for a discussion 
around "web data" in general.

thanks a lot and cheers,


erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Friday, 9 October 2015 21:53:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 9 October 2015 21:53:35 UTC