- From: Bart van Leeuwen <bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:17:31 +0100
- To: public-dwbp-wg <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF395E2569.F8EEABE2-ONC1257CA6.00597939-C1257CA6.00597EBF@netage.nl>
+1 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote on 25-03-2014 16:54:31: > From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> > To: Steven Adler <adler1@us.ibm.com> > Cc: public-dwbp-wg <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> > Date: 25-03-2014 16:54 > Subject: Re: Data "on" the Web vs Data "in" the Web > > Steve, I cannot let this e-mail of yours go unchallenged. > > On 25/03/2014 14:57, Steven Adler wrote: > > Those are good comments. The graph data market is pretty small today, > > with interest pretty evenly split between RDF and Property Graph. > > Really? I'm very interested to know about uses of Property Graphs as > there has been discussion about possibly standardising that at W3C. > We're having difficulty getting a sufficiently large community of > members together to do this. > > There > > are some things Graph databases can do, especially in social networking > > examples, that perform much better than traditional databases. > > > > But no one today is using RDF or Graph Data in any Open Data > > implementation and no one has any plans to do so. > > > This statement is grossly untrue. Off the top of my head examples of > public sector use of Linked Data (open or not): > > UN FAO > European Environment Agency > The BBC, New York Times etc. > The European Commission > UK Government > Deutsche National Bibliotek > Ordnance Survey > British Geological Survey > The Italian Government > The US EPA > The US DoH > > Away from the public sector it's used extensively in finance, health > care and life sciences are making extensive and growing use of it etc. > etc. Check out http://semanticweb.com/ for more news of the substantial > and growing commercial use of the technology. > > Cities and State > > governments have limited budgets and resources and very limited skills. > > True of course. The point of this WG is to show those people how to make > the best of what limited resources they have in this regard. They should > be able to benefit from the power of LD even if they don't necessarily > use it as a core tech themselves or even know they're using it. > > > > > And RDF and Graph are not the only ways to skin this cat... > > No, but it is the best available method that can operate at Web scale > and that maximises the benefits of the network effect. > > > > > Does Data Quality need linked data vocabularies to offer value? > > URIs as identifiers and LD vocabularies are how you share meaning across > different datasets. Datasets that use external vocabularies are more > valuable than ones that just use internal codes that are meaningless out > of that specific context. > > Wouldn't > > standardized lineage and certification suffice? > > Not sure what you mean by these. > > I can see the value of > > graph search for Data Comparability, but well defined metadata would also > > take Open Data to the next level. > > That's what the CSV on the Web WG is about, for example - well defined > metadata for tabular data that can, among other things, be used to > generate LD from the table. > > > If we only recommend RDF and Linked > > Data as Best Practices for Data Publishing and only a small fraction of > > the market can use them, what good have we done? > > See previous. It's about making the benefits of LD, i.e. using the Web > as a data platform, not just a means for shifting PDFs and CSVs from one > place to another. We want people to get the most from their efforts to > bring efficiencies and transparency, as well as supporting the > commercial knowledge economy. > > > > > I want to make sure that the work we do has maximum impact and so far use > > case evidence does not convince me that RDF and Linked Data alone will get > > us there. > > No one is suggesting that it alone will get us there. But everything we > do should support the goal of making use of the power of the Web. That > means making sure people use URIs as identifiers, or that they publish > metadata such that their non-URI identifiers can be rendered as URIs; > that relationships are defined etc. > > The Editor's Draft that Augusto began this thread by pointing to is > interesting [1]. That talks about how to put links into non-RDF and > non-HTML formats. +1 to that. > > Phil. > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kelly-json-hal > > > > > > > > From: > > Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl> > > To: > > Steven Adler/Somers/IBM@IBMUS > > Cc: > > Christophe Gueret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>, Augusto Herrmann > > <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>, "hellmatic@gmail.com" <hellmatic@gmail.com>, > > public-dwbp-wg <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> > > Date: > > 03/25/2014 07:31 AM > > Subject: > > Re: Data "on" the Web vs Data "in" the Web > > > > > > > > Hoi Steve, > > Last year Facebook announced its graph search function, choosing the power > > of semantic search without RDF. What I have learned from this WG > > experience so far is that W3C doesn't really create open standards. It > > creates and enhances and promotes W3C standards. > > I've some difficulties to follow you on that one, aren't W3C standards > > open ? > > The rest of the world often thanks W3C for its ideas and then implements > > those ideas in different ways. > > I thought this was rather common in industry. People copy each other and > > spend time re-branding the same ideas, also probably to go around patents > > while re-using things that are indeed good ideas. E.g. "retina display" > > versus "hd screen", "facetime" VS "hangout" VS "videoconference", "like" > > VS "+1", google's graph VS facebook's graph, etc ... > > Can we, this WG, imagine creating or recommending standards that are > > objective - that describe things to do that anyone can do with or without > > RDF? > > We'll see... :) > > > > Regards, > > Christophe > > > > Regards, > > > > Steve > > > > From: Christophe Guéret [christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl] > > Sent: 03/24/2014 04:01 PM CET > > To: Steven Adler > > Cc: Christophe Gueret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>; Augusto Herrmann > > <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>; "hellmatic@gmail.com" <hellmatic@gmail.com>; > > public-dwbp-wg <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> > > > > Subject: Re: Data "on" the Web vs Data "in" the Web > > > > > > So now we are creating W3C standards for publishing data as unstructured > > text on websites? > > The message of this presentation is actually quite the opposite ;-) > > Instead the idea is to use the Web as platform to host the data. That is, > > instead of publishing datasets as resources use URIs and HTTP to gain > > access to specific (structured !) elements of data sets which can be > > linked and re-used. There has to be a structure and there has to be links > > possibility but this does not mean that RDF is the only model that will > > work out and that RDF/XML is the only way to serialise data. > > > > Is that what's in the charter? Honestly I have always found the charter > > to be confusing. Maybe it was intended to be machine readable. ;- > > > > :-) > > > > Cheers, > > Christophe > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Steve > > > > From: Christophe Guéret [christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl] > > Sent: 03/24/2014 03:42 PM CET > > To: Steven Adler > > Cc: Augusto Herrmann <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>; "hellmatic@gmail.com" > > <hellmatic@gmail.com>; DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> > > > > Subject: Re: Data "on" the Web vs Data "in" the Web > > > > Hoi, > > > > I think this (semantic !) discussion around data "on" and "in" can be a > > good way to let people see the difference being putting a link to a > > resource which is a data set dump ("on") and providing some kind of API > > ("in") - whatever the technologies of the API are. Lately, I've been using > > that argument to point people to the fact that downloading dumps of data > > in various forms is like doing document sharing prior to the Web. Coming > > them to the conclusion that we should publish our data as Web sites. There > > is a bit of a focus set on SemWeb technologies for that but, really, we > > could think of many other ways to reach the same result. Here are the > > slides, comments are most welcome ;-) : > > http://www.slideshare.net/cgueret/linking-knowledge-spaces > > > > Cheers, > > Christophe > > > > > > > > On 20 March 2014 15:17, Steven Adler <adler1@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > Augusto, > > > > I am interested in learning about HAL and look forward to this discussion. > > But I am a bit concerned with the way you phrase these sentences: > > > > "There should be a way to at first publish open data resources that are > > linked, but without rdf, such as in xml and json. Then, at a later date, > > improve with a descriptive rdf vocabulary and expressed in rdf to become > > linked open data (preferrably, if possible, keeping compatibility with > > clients that implemented reading the previous non-semantic version)." > > > > To me this reads that non-rdf methods like xml and json are accommodations > > to constituents who "have not yet seen the light of RDF" and I want to > > make sure we are providing best practices standards recommendations to the > > world that exists rather than the "perfect world" we would like someday to > > exist. > > > > At IBM, we make software that runs on many operating systems. Of course > > we employ people with preferences for OSX, Linux, Systemz, AIX, Unix, and > > even Windows. Heck, many ATMS around the world still run on OS/2... > > > > But because our customers run all of the above we supply them with all of > > the above solutions. > > > > Can we agree on an "all of the above" approach to DWBP (without suggesting > > that everything someday becomes RDF) too? > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Steve > > > > Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again" > > > > > > From: > > Augusto Herrmann <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com> > > To: > > DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> > > Date: > > 03/19/2014 01:16 PM > > Subject: > > Re: Data "on" the Web vs Data "in" the Web > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > this is a very important point, Ig. My thoughts exactly when I suggested > > we look at the Hypertext Application Language (HAL) proposal [1] in the > > first meeting. It was in fact an invitation for us to think about data > > "in" the web, as in "part of the web itself". We don't necessarily have to > > follow HAL, but should look at is as a source of inspiration. The way > > links are represented in resources in Subbu Allamaraju's RESTful > > Webservices Cookbook [2] is another source of inspiration. > > > > We should think of standard ways to insert links to other data into many > > common open data formats, such as xml, json and maybe even csv.. Of course > > this linking requirement is satisfied by linked open data and rdf, but > > sometimes organizations have some data and are willing to pubilsh, but > > initially do not have the necessary resources (i.e. people, knowledge) to > > develop vocabularies to describe the data. However, interlinking among > > resources of a dataset, or even linking to resources in other datasets is > > somewhat easier to do. There should be a way to at first publish open data > > resources that are linked, but without rdf, such as in xml and json. Then, > > at a later date, improve with a descriptive rdf vocabulary and expressed > > in rdf to become linked open data (preferrably, if possible, keeping > > compatibility with clients that implemented reading the previous > > non-semantic version). > > > > Perhaps this could become a use case for the Best Practices document. > > > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kelly-json-hal > > [2] http://books.google.com.br/books?id=LDuzpQlVuG4C > > > > All the best, > > Augusto Herrmann > > Open Data Team - Ministry of Planning - Brazil > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Ig Ibert Bittencourt <ig.ibert@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > Hello DWBP, > > > > I was reading again about the 5 Start for Open Data and I saw this > > affirmation below about 3 starts Web Data [1] that I think would be > > interesting to share with this WG. > > > > Excellent! The data is not only available via the Web but now everyone can > > use the data easily. On the other hand, it's still data on the Web and not > > data in the Web. > > > > > > With regards this affirmation, you can see more details in [2] and [3], > > but not that much. > > > > > > [1] http://5stardata.info/ > > [2] http://webofdata.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/data-and-the-web-choices/ > > [3] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200211/msg01290.html > > > > > > Best, > > > > Ig Ibert Bittencourt > > Professor Adjunto III - Universidade Federal de Alagoas (UFAL) > > Vice-Coordenador da Comissão Especial de Informática na Educação > > Líder do Centro de Excelência em Tecnologias Sociais > > Co-fundador da Startup MeuTutor Soluções Educacionais LTDA. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Phil Archer > W3C Data Activity Lead > http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ > > http://philarcher.org > +44 (0)7887 767755 > @philarcher1 >
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 16:18:04 UTC