W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > December 2009

Re: FINAL OPPORTUNITY FOR INPUT: FW: please review and edit "Projects", wiki note

From: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:44:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4B183F5E.5060401@innoq.com>
To: Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com>
CC: "Novak, Kevin" <KevinNovak@aia.org>, eGovIG IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Hi Cory,

Cory Casanave schrieb:
> Thomas,
> I must disagree with you on this point.  
No problem, we are here for discussion and debate.
> There is a fundamental
> different between being able to point at "some data" in "some format"
> and knowing that we can query, traverse and understand the data and
> metadata.
>   
Exactly this is what I wanted to be distinguished.
> The value proposition for visibility of information in open government
> demands the type of commitment to standards.  
Right. You probably will acknowledge some diversity of such standards
around.
> We need an internet data
> model to support this vision.  We published some thoughts on this here:
> http://portal.modeldriven.org/content/data-cloud
> Should it be RDF?  At this point I don't see any other alternative on
> the table.  

Well, I personally favour RDF as well.
But I see many agencies proud about publishing by Web Services (WSDL,
SOAP), SDI/OGC spatial services, etcetera etcetera, which are standards
in their own right.
Are you proposing a statement such as "Open Government Data can be only
called open if it gets published in RDF?"
Sorry, I wouldn't buy that.

> We know that the various formats you enumerate can be
> normalized to an RDF format.  
Right, you can do so. But agencies might not want to do so, and why
should they?
(Seroiusly, give me some reasons different from "this ist the one and
only format")
> This will give government the "data cloud"
> that is the visibility of information relating to or produced by
> government.  
>   
I think exactly this is the problem about authorities: they don't want
to be some diffuse part of some cloud.
They are not so amused about the open world assumption as we are, hey?
Secondly, is the "data cloud" so visible in the eyes of citizens?
I think definitely not, at least so far.

> Normalizing on an RDF data cloud does not mean you can't have other
> forms of data that may be more tuned to the data source, but lets also
> have the RDF rendition.
>   
WS or OGC or even simple HTML are not "more tuned to the data source"
than RDF is, they are just different from RDF
Again, RDF Linked Data is just one of many technologies for publishing OGD.
RDF Linked Data is my favorite technology (obviously just like yours?),
and I am convinced it is the superior pattern.
But it is not the only pattern.
Time will tell ...

> Regards,
> Cory Casanave
>   
Best regards,

Thomas
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 22:45:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 3 December 2009 22:45:21 GMT