W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2010

Comments on Data 3.0 manifesto

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:56:32 +0100
Message-Id: <C2E833DA-8A60-4BE2-9D16-959D0191ECA4@cyganiak.de>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Hi Kingsley,

Regarding your blog post at
http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace/kidehen@openlinksw.com/weblog/kidehen@openlinksw.com%27s%20BLOG%20%5B127%5D/1624

Great job -- I like it a lot, it's not as fuzzy as Tim's four  
principles, not as mired in detail as most of the concrete literature  
around linked data, and on the right level of abstraction to explain  
why we need to do certain things in linked data in a certain way. It's  
also great for comparing the strengths and weaknesses of different  
data exchange stacks.

A few comments:

1. I'd like to see mentioned that identifiers should have global scope.

2. I'd prefer a list of the parts of a 3-tuple that reads:

      - an Identifier that names an Entity
      - an Identifier that names an Attribute
      - an Attribute Value, which may be an Identifier or a Literal  
(typed or untyped).

    This avoids using the new terms “Entity Identifier” and “Attribute  
Identifier”.

3. “Structured Descriptions SHOULD be borne by Descriptor Resources”  
-- I think this one is incomprehensible, because “to bear” is such an  
unusual verb and has no clear connotations in technical circles. I'd  
encourage a different phrasing.

3b. Any chance of talking you into using “Descriptor Document” rather  
than “Descriptor Resource”?

4. One thing that's left unclear: Can a Descriptor Resource carry  
multiple Structured Entity Descriptions or just a single one?

5. Putting each term in quotes when first introduced is a good idea  
and helps -- you did it for the first few terms but then stopped.

6. I'm tempted to add somewhere, “Descriptor Resources are Entities  
themselves.” But this might be a purposeful omission on your part?

7. The last point talks about a “Structured Representation” of the  
Referent's Structured Description. The term hasn't been introduced.  
Shouldn't this just read “Descriptor Resource carrying the Referent's  
Structured Description”?

What's your preferred name for the entire thing? I'm tempted to call  
it “Kingsley's networked EAV model” or something like that. Do you  
insist on “Data 3.0”?

Best,
Richard
Received on Saturday, 17 April 2010 10:57:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:26 UTC