W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2019

Re: How to fund a website for getting started with RDF applications?

From: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 22:14:37 +0100
Cc: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <628FED6E-AD15-4E05-83BD-FE74D75991F6@glasers.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
1) I think such resources should offer to solve (or at least address!) problems.
So it should be more like a family of sites that are something like “How to build an app to do xxx”.

2) I know this is the SemWeb list, but I should say that I want resources that help people get started with Linked Data.
RDF doesn’t really interest me, and is only incidental to the Linked Data goodness and infrastructure that I find so useful.
So it would be good if any such resource had parts that simply did the Linked Data stuff, and didn’t major on RDF (and if they do address RDF, in the context of resolvable URIs, not SPARQL.)
To be explicit, addressing 7/8ths of the four Linked Data principles:
	• Use URIs as names for things
	• Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names.
	• When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information
	• Include links to other URIs. so that they can discover more things.

> On 15 Mar 2019, at 23:21, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> How should a central website for getting started with RDF-related applications be funded and administered?
> Many major development technologies have a central website that gives newcomers everything they need to get started with that technology: tutorials, downloads, etc.   RDF does not.  Tools and learning resources are scattered, and the landscape is littered with abandonware. Newcomers have a difficult time figuring out what to use and how to start.  This problem was discussed both at the W3C Graph Data workshop in Berlin last week, and at the US Semantic Technology Symposium this week at Duke University.  See slides 68-74:
> https://tinyurl.com/EasierDuke
> RDF needs a central website for newcomers.   But how should it be funded and administered?  My thoughts so far:
> - Community engagement is essential, but a wiki-like model that is entirely community driven would not work.   Multiple attempts along those lines have already been made, and they have become abandonware after their main contributors moved on to other activities.
> - Curation is essential.  The site should not simply hold a long list of potential tools.  It needs to guide users more selectively through the jungle, by recommending specific sets of tools that are most likely to make the user successful.  Ideally the site should also point out alternative tools.
> - Tool selection is a judgement call, and different people will not all make the same choices for a given use case.  Nonetheless, such judgement calls are extremely helpful to newcomers.  Therefore, we need to figure out the right community-driven mechanisms for informing or making these judgement calls.  (As an example, judgement calls like this are made routinely for every release of Red Hat or Ubuntu when those organizations decide which packages to include.  What process do they use?)
> - Curation adds crucial value, but it also costs real money (or time).  Web hosting costs are trivial in comparison.  How should the site be funded?   As a non-profit, from contributions?   Vendors and big RDF users might be convinced to donate.  What should they get in return? Exposure?   Some advertising?
> - If ads are included, they must be relevant, unobtrusive and have no animation or sound.
> - Diversity of use cases.  Because of the wide variety of RDF use cases, it would be best to provide different tracks for different kinds of use cases, such as:
>   - Content organization by metadata (for libraries, etc.)
>   - Data integration (multiple data sources & data models)
>   - OWL reasoning (e.g., with OBO Foundry ontologies)
> - How to balance free and open source with commercial interests?  The main focus should be on free and open source software: a newcomer should be quickly successful using only free and open source software.  But pointers to commercial tools and services should be considered also, both to help users find them, and to have vendor support of the site. However, the commercial aspect must be managed and balanced properly, to prevent the site from smelling like yet another marketing ploy.
> I am interested to hear other thoughts or ideas.   Also, please let me know (privately or publicly) if you are keen on helping to figure this out and get this going.
> Thanks!
> David Booth
Received on Saturday, 16 March 2019 21:15:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 16 March 2019 21:15:15 UTC