- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:37:45 -0700
- To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
- Cc: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
You’re right. We keep coming back to it. When we discuss it, it seems to me we have some sort of general agreement but just haven’t figured out how to express it. For example, by using them as counterexamples, you clearly suggest that structured 3D models of statues or excavation sites and highly structured legislation documents are not what we are after. How can we constrain the concept of data so that it matches our feeling for what we are writing BPs about? I think whatever we use should be something that a typical manager or web developer would consider a reasonable subset of the many things humans call data. Those are the people who will come to the document for guidance. I think we need to avoid trying to *define* data, because it is too vague a concept, and attempts to define it universally, as a dictionary would, work against our need for scoping. Okay, I’ll go out on a limb and give it a whirl. I think we could limit our work to structured sets of symbols (words, numbers, or images, still or moving) not intended to convey meaning on their own, but representing observations, facts, or forecasts. To be clear, I’m not offering this as a general definition of what data is; that is not what we need. I’m suggesting this as a scope. -Annette -- Annette Greiner NERSC Data and Analytics Services Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 510-495-2935 On Aug 13, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote: > I agree we need a better definition of the scope. > > Limiting to structured data may be a sensible restriction. However, while it > would exclude images of paintings, highly structured 3D models of statues or > excavation sites would be in scope; it would exclude an unstructured .txt > file, but not the highly structured legislation or procurement data that is > already getting published as RDF in projects that I know of. > > The problem we're having is that this discussion pops up every couple of > months and then dies out without a clear and citable decision having been > taken and recorded. > > Makx. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Annette Greiner [mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov] >> Sent: 13 August 2015 21:48 >> To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> >> Cc: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org >> Subject: Re: Use machine-readable standardized data formats / Use non- >> proprietary data formats >> >> I think we do need to scope it, but limiting it to tabular data is too > restrictive. >> Even CSV and JSON wouldn't qualify. If you meant structured data, I think >> that could work. >> - Annette >> >> -- >> Annette Greiner >> NERSC Data and Analytics Services >> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >> 510-495-2935 >> >
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2015 22:38:30 UTC