W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > August 2015

Re: Use machine-readable standardized data formats / Use non-proprietary data formats

From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:52:12 -0700
Cc: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <691C36B0-8550-40A6-B706-B592BA03A7C4@lbl.gov>
To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
Also, to disambiguate a little, when I say graph data, I don't mean "data shown in a graph". I mean data representing a mathematical graph, as in genome assembly data, or network connection data, a connection matrix.

On Aug 14, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote:

> I think they are particular representations of data. If you publish a cool 3D rendering of some data, I think that is enriching it, but the data are the individual observations (vectors or voxels or whatever) used to make the representation. For molecules, I would say that a structured listing of the atoms and their bonds is the data. Otherwise, every visualization is data, which one can certainly argue in the definitional sense, but I think is beyond our scope.
> -Annette
> On Aug 14, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote:
>> Annette,
>> You hit the problems spot on:
>>> I'm trying not to rule out things like graph data.
>>> I think 3D models are out of scope, whether of sculptures or molecules. If
>> the
>>> model is broken down into data, then it is in scope. 
>> To be clear, I wasn't talking about paper and glue 3D models, but about
>> digital representations of objects and phenomena in space. How can you say
>> that is not 'data'?
>> Makx.
Received on Friday, 14 August 2015 14:52:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:40 UTC