- From: Yaso <yaso@nic.br>
- Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 10:32:25 -0200
- To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Hi Augusto! On 12/2/14 10:10 AM, Augusto Herrmann wrote: > 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)? > I'm glad that you raised this arguments, Augusto! Although you did not participated on the meetings, I think that there is an alignment among the web dev community (that works with data) about this. We definitely have to be more open to new techniques not so connected with the perfection of 5 stars. We tried to adress this on TPAC :-) > 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 data unpublished for a long (potentially very long) period of time.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? At least for me, it does. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata-rdf/ > > Best regards, > Augusto Herrmann > Best, yaso > 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 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > -- Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br W3C Brazil Office @yaso 55 11 5509-3537 (4025) skype: yasocordova
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2014 12:32:55 UTC