W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

From: Stephane Fellah <fellahst@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:32:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CALfZuNoi7ted+A14F+Gc1uf6dzw=hYQpe9OTDTd9fwsykkL1MA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
I agree with you David. Unfortunately the title of rating system (Linked
Open Data) is often misinterpreted.

The first 3 stars are really describing Open Data. The last two are really
Linked Data. A better title could be: "From Data to Linked Data" . I often
used the term of "Infocline" to describe the migration from data to


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> On 06/20/2013 02:09 PM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
>> <http://www.w3.org/**DesignIssues/LinkedData.html<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html>
>> >
>> Discussing 5-star Linked Open Data (2010 addition to this
>> document created in 2006) --
>>  ★        Available on the web (whatever format) but with
>>>            an open licence, to be Open Data
>>> ★★       Available as machine-readable structured data
>>>            (e.g. excel instead of image scan of a table)
>>> ★★★      as (2) plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV
>>>             instead of excel)
>>> ★★★★    All the above plus, Use open standards from W3C
>>>             (RDF and SPARQL) to identify things, so that
>>>             people can point at your stuff
>>> ★★★★★  All the above, plus: Link your data to other
>>>             people’s data to provide context
>> Now...  RDF doesn't come in until you get a 4-star rating.
>> Are all you folks who are arguing that Linked Data *mandates*
>> RDF suggesting that 1-, 2-, and 3-star rated Linked Open Data
>> is *not* Linked Data?
> Exactly.  Read the criteria above for the stars, and think about it.
> Suppose a JPEG image is placed on the web with an open license.  Would it
> make any sense to call it "Linked Open Data", just because it meets the
> criteria for one star?  Certainly not, as that would render the term
> completely meaningless.  And as a second example, notice that linking only
> comes into play with *five* stars: data meeting the first four stars is not
> even linked!  It would not any make sense at all to call something "4-star
> Linked Open Data" if it is not even linked!
> The only sensible interpretation of the stars is that they indicate
> milestones of progress *toward* "Linked Open Data" -- *not* that there are
> five levels of Linked Open Data.
> David
Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 15:32:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:37 UTC