- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:00:26 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: public-gld-wg@w3.org
On 23/05/13 11:35, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > > Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm OK with this but I'm confused why we are doing this rewrite at all. >> >> The original version on Tim's DesignIssues page [1] seems perfectly >> usable to me: >> >> """ >> 1. Available on the web (whatever format) but with an open licence, to >> be Open Data >> 2. Available as machine-readable structured data (e.g. excel instead of >> >> image scan of a table) >> 3. as (2) plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV instead of excel) >> 4. All the above plus, Use open standards from W3C (RDF and SPARQL) to >> identify things, so that people can point at your stuff >> 5. All the above, plus: Link your data to other people’s data to >> provide >> context >> """ >> >> I'm not sure what value is been added by saying the same thing in >> slightly different words. >> >> [OK I know there was some pushback on the mention of excel in #3, I >> would be OK with deleting "instead of excel" in the interests of side >> stepping that. But as I say, I guess I'm OK with the versions in this >> thread too.] >> > > I can live with Tim's text if excel is changed to "application-dependent xml", but I do find point five in that text very misleading. Do you consider some RDF to be linked data if the only working URLs are in owl:import or rdfs:seeAlso triples? (a) No, but there's a sliding scale of completeness. (b) There is a difference between having working URLs and linking to other peoples data. You could publish data in which all the URLs deference but they are in your own namespace. C.f. VoID link sets, sameas.org etc. I guess Marios' amendment sort of deals with that. (c) I find the "to provide context" bit helpful. (d) I was trying to forestall this email thread by saying "just use the original version", that's already failed! So in that case I withdraw my question and, as I've already said, will accept any of the suggestions in this thread. Dave > > - Sandro > >> Dave >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html (towards the bottom, >> >> *not* the mug picture) >> >> On 23/05/13 04:01, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> On 05/22/2013 07:12 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>>> In general, the glossary is great, but the current text on 5 star is >> not okay. >>>> >>>> I can live with dropping it (for now), or just pointing to Tim's >> page, but not the current definition which never even mentions RDF. >> Sorry. >>> >>> Bernadette asked me to make another suggestion for the wording. I >> can >>> see how my earlier suggestions were a bit verbose for this context. >>> >>> First, a reminder what Tim says 4-stars and 5-stars mean: >>> >>> 4: RDF Standards >>> 5: Linked RDF >>> >>> That's a little terse (so it could fit on the mug). As a middle >> ground >>> how about: >>> >>> *4: Publish data on the Web as RDF (eg Turtle, RDFa, JSON-LD, SPARQL) >>> 5: In your RDF, have the identifiers be links (URLs) to useful data >> sources* >>> >>> Okay? Can we live with that? >>> >>> -- Sandro >>> >>> >>> >>> Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> Remaining feedback folded in especially in relation to definition >> of >>>>> "Resource", addition of "Web Resource" and fixing 5 star LOD >>>>> definition. Also updated normative references in doc. >>>>> >>>>> Linked Data Glossary Draft 21-May 2013 [1] is ready for publication >>>>> once run through one last PubRules check. (Last week the WG >> approved >>>>> to publish as a WG Note.) >>>>> >>>>> NB: Editorial changes are to keep tone consistent with rest of the >>>>> document, however were not intended to alter the proposed meaning. >> If >>>>> this unintentionally happened, please notify asap. Reference to >> RFC >>>>> 3986 was made elsewhere so I dropped from below proposal so as to >> not >>>>> sound repetitive. >>>>> >>>>> Again, we're striving for simplicity and for this to be a glossary >> of >>>>> terms for Web developers, not the anointed per se. >>>>> >>>>> All OK now per your feedback?? >>>>> >>>>> -----%<------- >>>>> 90. Resource >>>>> >>>>> In an RDF context, a resource can be anything that an RDF graph >>>>> describes. A resource can be addressed by a Unified Resource >> Identifier >>>>> (URI). See also Resource Description Framework (RDF) 1.1 Concepts >> and >>>>> Abstract Syntax [RDF11-CONCEPTS] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 127. Web Resource >>>>> >>>>> A web page addressed by a URL. Examples include: an HTML web page, >> an >>>>> image offered by a web server, or a dataset accessible by a URL. A >> Web >>>>> Resource may have different representations. For example, an RDF >>>>> database might be accessed at a single URL using multiple syntaxes, >>>>> such as RDFa, JSON-LD, and Turtle. See also Hypertext Transfer >> Protocol >>>>> HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616]. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Bernadette Hyland >>>>> >>>>> [1]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/glossary/index.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 8, 2013, at 5:48 AM, Dave >> Reynolds<Dave.e.Reynolds@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 08/05/13 05:39, Bernadette Hyland wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Sandro, >>>>>>> The editors have folded in all comments received in relation to >> the >>>>> LD >>>>>>> Glossary. Please see latest version. [1] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For Thursday's telecon, would you create a diff previously >> approved >>>>> for >>>>>>> publication (April) & the May 7th (current). Also, need a new >>>>>>> Overview.html file run through PubRules. I'm done until we get >>>>> further >>>>>>> feedback. Thanks for your help on this. >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding "Resource", I've simplified to include only one >>>>> definition. >>>>>>> In keeping with my new mantra, "keep it simple", how does this >> this >>>>>>> sit with you & others? >>>>>> Personally I prefer Sandro's suggestion. I imagine that at least >> some >>>>> people reading the glossary will be aware of the notion of REST and >>>>> might expect something more like the entry for Web Resource. Having >>>>> both solves that problem. >>>>>> However, it's not something I would argue strongly over. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 89. Resource >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In an RDF context, a resource can be anything that an RDF graph >>>>>>> describes. A resource can be addressed by a Unified Resource >>>>> Identifier >>>>>>> (URI) >>>>>>> >>>>> >> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/glossary/index.html#uniform-resource-identifier>. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keep in mind that this LD Glossary is a starting point for those >> new >>>>> to >>>>>>> Linked Data. We don't want to scare people, it is the 'welcome >>>>> basket' >>>>>>> not the definitive guide for the working LD expert (which is >> found >>>>>>> elsewhere on the W3C site). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Bernadette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> [1]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/glossary/index.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sandro wrote: >>>>>>>> I've thought about more than most people have thought about food >>>>>>> PS. Clearly you haven't met my 15 year old son who pretty much >> only >>>>>>> thinks about food ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 7, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org >>>>>>> <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> def'n of resource? >>>>>>>> Bernadette and I were working on actually publishing the >> Glossary, >>>>>>>> which the group approved for publication, and I noticed a little >>>>> problem: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 86. Resource >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A resource is anything that can be addressed by a Unified >>>>> Resource >>>>>>>> Identifier (URI) >>>>>>>> >>>>> >> <file:///home/sandro/Repos/gld/glossary/diff.html#uniform-resource-identifiers>. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 93. Resource >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A resource is a network data object or service that can be >>>>>>>> identified by an HTTP URI. Resources may be available in >>>>> multiple >>>>>>>> representations (e.g. multiple languages, data formats, >> size, >>>>> and >>>>>>>> resolutions) or vary in other ways. See details from RFC >> 2616bis >>>>>>>> for details on Uniform Resource Identifiers. See details >> from >>>>> RFC >>>>>>>> 2616bis for details on Uniform Resource Identifiers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The definition of Resource is something I've thought about more >>>>> than >>>>>>>> most people have thought about food. I suggest we call the >> second >>>>> one >>>>>>>> "Web Resource", and explain, like this: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Resource* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (Not to be confused with _Web Resource_) An entity. >> Saying >>>>> that >>>>>>>> something is a resource says nothing at all about it, >> because by >>>>>>>> the definition of the term, everything is a resource. For >>>>> more >>>>>>>> details see Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic >> Syntax >>>>> (RFC >>>>>>>> 3986) [1] and Resource Description Framework (RDF) 1.1 >> Concepts >>>>> [2]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Web Resource* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anything which is addressed by a URL; roughly speaking, a >> web >>>>>>>> page. Examples include: an HTML web page, an image offered >> by a >>>>>>>> web server, or a dataset available for access at some URL. >> A >>>>>>>> resource may change its state over time and have different >>>>>>>> representations of the same state. For example, a webcam >> might >>>>>>>> offer both JPEG and PNG versions of its current image, at >> the >>>>> same >>>>>>>> URL, using content negotiation, or an RDF database might be >>>>>>>> accessed at one URL using multiple syntaxes, such as RDFa, >>>>>>>> JSON-LD, and Turtle. For more details see Hypertext >> Transfer >>>>>>>> Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 [3] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sometimes Web Resources are just called "Resources". In >> some >>>>>>>> contexts, this can cause unnecessary confusion. The >> difference >>>>> is >>>>>>>> related to the distinction between URLs (which identify Web >>>>>>>> Resources) and URIs (which identify Resources in general), >> as >>>>>>>> discussed inhttp://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3305#page-3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986 >>>>>>>> [2] >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#resources-and-statements >>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>> >>>>> >> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04.html#intro.terminology >>>>>>>> I hope that works for folks. Bernadette made some other >> changes, >>>>> so >>>>>>>> we're going to ask the WG for approval again before publishing. >>>>> I'll >>>>>>>> be sending along a pointer to the new version and the diffs once >> I >>>>>>>> have it passing pubrules. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Sandro >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2013 11:01:06 UTC