- From: Lee, Deirdre <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:35:22 +0000
- To: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
I don't think R-FormatStandardized is the same as R-FormatMachineRead. Machine-readability is highlighted in many policy documents as being vital for Open Data, i.e. G8 OD Charter and EC guidelins. While I agree that all files on the Web are technically machine-readable, I don't think this infers that all data is machine-readable. While pdf is standardised, for most applications, it is difficult to process data contained within. I suggest we try and strengthen this requirement with other use-cases. -----Original Message----- From: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org] Sent: 03 June 2014 23:45 To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org Subject: dwbp-ISSUE-36: Review requirement: R-FormatMachineRead dwbp-ISSUE-36: Review requirement: R-FormatMachineRead http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/36 Raised by: Makx Dekkers On product: R-FormatMachineRead seems to be more specific than the requirement from the two use cases listed as motivation. The cases seem to be pointing to the problem of different formats which is already included as R-FormatStandardised. I am actually not so sure about R-FormatMachineRead in principle. After all, all formats of data on the Web (which is what we are concerned with) are machine-readable – it can only be on the Web if it is a file on a computer. Some formats may be easier to process for certain purposes but they are all machine-readable. For example, for a visually-impaired person with a PDF-to-speech reader, PDF is an ideal machine-readable format. Maybe the requirement is rather that data should be published in formats that are appropriate for its intended or potential use?
Received on Monday, 4 August 2014 14:35:55 UTC