Re: DWBP Audience

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------