W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > December 2010

Wiki page on Goals

From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 15:41:44 -0500
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20101202204144.GA532@octavius>
The authors of the Goals page [1] suggest we use the discussion
page [2] for discussion, but of course we are also using the mailing
lists [3,4] and telecons [5], so even for one document it can get
confusing :-)

I suggest we use the list to discuss, and that we allow
ourselves occasionally to insert comments directly into [1],
clearly marking them with parentheses and italics...

Emma suggests:
> - DESCRIBE: describe a resource and/or provide context for a resource.
> This one is probably related with FIND/SEARCH and DISCOVER/SUGGEST but
> I don't know how so.

To me, everything in linked data is a relationship.  
Even the triple "X dc:title 'On History'" is the relationship
of "X" to a title (a string literal).  So to me, description 
is the act of relating a resource to descriptive information - or
to other resources.  Therefore, I would put "DESCRIBE" under the 
heading "Make relationships".

Mark suggests:
> Your suggestion for MAP-VALUE and MAP-METADATA can also be covered with
> our suggested qualifier approach; eg MAP (value), MAP (metada). The
> reason for qualifiers is that every extra option/attribute of a goal
> would end up getting us a too large set of goals.

How about "MAP-INDIVIDUALS" versus "MAP-VOCABULARIES"?  I am
less confident about this one and have not added it to the
wiki document.  This depends on how we decide to name things
like "value vocabularies".

The group currently labeled "Find relationships", on the other
hand, I see as being more about "using" relationships (i.e.,
"Use relationships").  The relationships, once "made" (see
above), are "used" to discover, suggest, search, and browse.

In the group "Publishing & Services", Emma asks:
> Your goals appear to me rather as *requirements*. I mean, if you want
> to create Linked Data, providing a URI is not a goal, it's something
> you *have to* do, hence a requirement (my definition of it, at
> least...)

Maybe the goal is to "NAME" things with URIs.  Yes, assigning URIs
is a general requirement, but I think it could also be a goal if a
primary motive is to give handles to a set of things so that they 
can be the subject or object of assertions in linked data.

In the section "Represent original data as RDF":
> "REUSE-SCHEMAS"

"Schema" has been so overused that I think it should be avoided
when possible.  Moreover in this particular point, the issue is not
so much reusing "schemas" (files), but reusing terms from existing 
vocabularies".  If we are leaning towards talking about "element
vocabularies", this could be "REUSE-ELEMENT-VOCABS" (which would
fit with "REUSE-VALUE-VOCABS").

Tom

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Goals
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Talk:Goals
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/
[5] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/11/25-lld-minutes.html

-- 
Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:42:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:42:23 GMT