- From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 19:26:28 -0300
- To: Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br>
- Cc: Augusto Herrmann <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>, DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Yaso <yaso@nic.br>
- Message-ID: <CANx1PzxkJBiew8F_HKNODRt+omeOmsFU=Wtg_hDV4eoa7gLk3g@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Augusto, Thanks again for your comments and suggestions! We changed the last paragraph to consider your suggestion: "Readers of this document are expected to be familiar with some fundamental concepts of the architecture of the Web [1], such as resources and URIs, as well as open data formats [ref]. Basic knowledge about vocabularies and ontologies would be helpful to better understand some aspects of this document. kind regards, Bernadette [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ 2014-12-02 16:49 GMT-03:00 Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br>: > Hi Augusto, > > I fully agree with you. I’m going to change this part on the Wiki document. > And I think it would be nice to make available the references for those > resources that we classified "as prerequisites", as you have pointed. > > Best regards, > Newton > > Em 02/12/2014, à(s) 17:25, Augusto Herrmann <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com> > escreveu: > > Newton, > > I think we should be concerned about not discouraging people who lack this > knowledge to read the document. With this in mind, how about adding the > expression "some aspects of", like this: ""Basic knowledge about > vocabularies and ontologies would be helpful to better understand some > aspects of this document.”? > > And what about my suggestion to the first sentence I wrote before? Don't > you think it's important to give a reference right there for people to look > up the concepts they're not familiar with? > > Best regards, > Augusto Herrmann > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br> wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> > > -- Bernadette Farias Lóscio Centro de Informática Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2014 22:27:16 UTC