- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 09:41:06 +0100
- To: Ig Ibert Bittencourt <ig.ibert@gmail.com>
- CC: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Yaso Córdova <yaso@nic.br>, Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias.moro@gmail.com>
Thanks Ig, No, I'm not suggesting we take on vocabulary design. We refer to the LD-BP document in several places. One of them, http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#vocabulary-creation, probably covers all we need to say, so that might be enough. Phil. On 02/04/2015 07:13, Ig Ibert Bittencourt wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Very nice comments and +1 to almost of that. > > My only doubt is about the quesiton you did related to Data Vocabularies: *How > can a new vocabulary be designed if needed?* > > None of the 33 Best Practices (maybe BP 15 - Choose the right formalization > level) are related with the design of vocabularies. Are you suggesting that > we should extend the BP Document to add best practices specifically related > to the design of new vocabs? > > Best, > Ig > > 2015-03-31 14:03 GMT-03:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>: > >> Moving discussion to our list... >> >> I like "...whilst it recommends the use of Linked Data, it also promotes >> best practices for data on the web in formats such as CSV and JSON." >> >> Given the current discussion about things like PDFs, audio files and so >> on, we could extend it event further to say >> >> "...whilst it recommends the use of Linked Data, it also promotes best >> practices for data on the web in formats such as CSV and JSON as well as >> information published for human consumption in documents, audio and video >> files etc." >> >> A big -1 to Carlos' comments on "Identifiers not URIs." The Web works on >> URIs. Those are the identifiers we care about. Yes, we have to cope with >> other identifiers - people do love their DOIs and find them useful for >> example - but they're just strings. URIs are defreferencable, other >> identifiers are not (DOIs only become dereferencable if you convert them to >> URIs; Quad Erat Demonstrandum). >> >> So in my view the current text is right, i.e. >> >> Data Identification >> How can unique identifiers be provided for data resources? >> How should URIs be designed and managed for persistence? >> >> There are more comments on URIs later in the doc with which I disagree >> equally strongly. This is the W3C WG on Data on the Web, not data anywhere >> else. If it hasn't got a URI, it's not on the Web and is therefore out of >> scope. >> >> On the term 'vocabularies' - I think Antoine answered Carlos well but I'd >> be happy with some sort of expansion, such as: >> >> Data Vocabularies >> How can existing terms, vocabularies and data models be used to provide >> semantic interoperability? >> How can a new vocabulary be designed if needed? >> >> Likewise, Carlos objects to: "... Appropriate security measures should >> also account for secure authentication and use of HTTPS" >> >> HTTPS is the secure protocol on the Web. Anything not HTTP(s) is not on >> the Web and is probably out of scope for W3C. >> >> Overall, Carlos, it seems to me that you're trying to remove the Web >> component altogether. As you'd expect, I strongly disagree. >> >> As we've discussed, data comes in all sorts of formats, but we're >> concerned with using the Web as best as we can - and in many cases that >> *does* mean using LD technologies and/or RESTful APIs that return JSON. >> That is how you do data on the Web and we mustn't be afraid to say so. If >> all you're talking about is shifting some bytes from A to B in a process >> that could just as well be completed by exchanging USB sticks then that's a >> perfectly valid operation - but it's not data on the Web. >> >> Phil. >> >> On 31/03/2015 16:11, Yaso wrote: >> >>> I made several suggestions, although many questions raised by Carlos >>> Iglesias still remains at https://docs.google.com/document/d/ >>> 1ecwweAM5t4UVFEjcXnFhXmCUBnRDvwZ1smRLtiKkBEI/edit# >>> >>> If not merged, please submit feedback :-) >>> You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/117 >>> >>> -- Commit Summary -- >>> >>> * Updating doc to solve issues 144 #1 comment from Carlos Iglesias >>> * Changing URI's by identifiers to solve 144 issue - Carlos Iglesias >>> Suggestion >>> * Suggesting rewriting to solve 144 issue >>> * rewriting to solve 144 at 8.8 Sensitive Data >>> * Suggesting rewriting to solve 144 >>> >>> -- File Changes -- >>> >>> M bp.html (28) >>> >>> -- Patch Links -- >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/117.patch >>> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/117.diff >>> >>> --- >>> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: >>> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/117 >>> >>> >> -- >> >> >> Phil Archer >> W3C Data Activity Lead >> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ >> >> http://philarcher.org >> +44 (0)7887 767755 >> @philarcher1 >> >> >> > > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 08:41:15 UTC