Re: DWBP Audience

Hi, Bernadette and all.

This seems good to me.

I'm a bit concerned over though the requirement, in order to read the
document, of basic knowledge on RDF, vocabularies and ontologies.

Maybe this has been discussed already, since I haven't attended to all but
some of the first WG meetings and haven't formally participated in the WG
for a couple of reasons. Sorry if it's that's case and I missed the
discussion. But, considering that basic knowledge of RDF, vocabularies and
ontologies is not so widespread among web developers as we'd hope by now,
shouldn't the document have a basic set data publishing profile BP that
didn't require those, for publishing data in e.g. CSV and JSON, but keeping
the rest of the important requirements (e.g. versioning, provenance)?

Of course data in RDF described by vocabularies and ontologies could still
be recommended but not mandatory. Especially basic knowledge of it should
not be needed to read the BP document.

The rationale for this is twofold:

1) to encourage a "release early, release often" mentality for data
publishing, in that data publishers shouldn't wait until they have the
necessary resources to publish five star linked data, in effect keeping the
data unpublished for a long (potentially very long) period of time.
Non-semantic data is better than no data at all;

2) to not alienate the web developer community from reading about DWBP and
try to avoid a situation like what happened with the introduction of
Microdata in HTML5 and schema.org, where people simply ignored the existing
W3C semantic web standards and RDFa and created a competing standard
(through W3C nonetheless!) which was in turn backed by all the major search
engine companies. This was later averted by the RDF community creating
schema.rdfs.org and a standard way to convert Microdata to RDF [1] (while
RDFa 1.1 also was made much simpler to understand and use, which is good),
but IMHO the whole endeavor of working around Microdata and schema.org to
fit RDF was a major and unnecessary hurdle to begin with.

By making the semantic web part optional, it would greatly broaden the
audience of the document and reach of the BP, while keeping open a path
into linked open data for those so inclined to.

Does this make sense to you at all?

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata-rdf/

Best regards,
Augusto Herrmann

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I just included the description of the DWBP audience in the wiki [1].
>
> Looking forward for receiving  your comments and suggestions.
>
> kind regards,
> Bernadette
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/2._Audience
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>