Re: DWBP Audience

Hi Augusto,

I’ve changed the second sentence by removing the “required” word. 
"Basic knowledge about vocabularies and ontologies would be helpful to better understand this document.”
What do you think?

Best regards,
Newton

Em 02/12/2014, à(s) 15:16, Augusto Herrmann <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Yaso and Bernadette, thanks for the feedback.
> 
> Bernadette, I think I would write the first sentence in that paragraph as "Readers of this document are expected to be familiar with some fundamental concepts of the architecture of the world wide web [1], such as resources, URIs and open data formats."
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
> 
> This is also a good way to let people not familiar with these concepts to learn them by following the link provided.
> 
> As for the second sentence (the one mentioning vocabularies and ontologies), I'm not sure it is necessary. Or perhaps we could mention that it is helpful but not essential to understand the document. For what part of the target audience is this basic knowledge more helpful? To data publishers, to consumers, to developers, etc.?
> 
> Best regards,
> Augusto Herrmann
> 
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br> wrote:
> Hi Augusto,
> 
> Thank you for your comments!
> 
> I agree with you that "By making the semantic web part optional, it would greatly broaden the audience of the document and reach of the BP". We already discussed this in the group and there is a consensus that the idea is not to focus on specific technologies. BP won't propose or indicate the use of RDF or linked data or any specific technology.
> 
> When I mentioned  "expected to be familiar with some fundamental concepts such as URIs and data formats like CSV, JSON and RDF" it is because these concepts will be mentioned in the BP. In the same way, vocabularies and ontoogies are terms that will be used.
> 
> Maybe, in the way that I wrote it seems to be more than just using the terms. Do you have any suggestion of how to rewrite this? 
> 
> Thanks!
> Bernadette
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-12-02 9:10 GMT-03:00 Augusto Herrmann <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>:
> 
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>