Re: document biased toward linked data practices

On 17 March 2015 at 16:29, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that there is a way to describe best practices for data in the web
> generally and then touch on concrete illustrations.  It may be that these
> illustrations are heavily biased to linked data, I feel it is better to
> address data on the web more broadly than exclude a large segment of the
> web population who does not use linked data.
>

Totally agree on the approach.
I dont' see any problem with keeping BPs independent even when it could be
that there may be just LD implementation techniques for many in practice.


> The provenance best practice is an excellent example of how illustrations
> can be made using PROV-O.  This particular vocabulary also has translations
> in JSON and XML to accommodate other user communities.  An illustration
> could be made using PROV-O with references to the PROV-JSON and PROV-XML.
>

Yes, that is.


> If we did only focus on linked data how do we differentiate ourselves from
> [1]  [2] ?
>

That was also my point from the very beginning.


> I'd like for our working group best practices to remain focused on
> addressing the broader picture of linked and non-linked data on the web.
>

Me too.



> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, All,
>>
>> This will be a huge problem for the group. I am not so sure of giving up
>> of our work. Even if we focus only in LD we always could say that the
>> document will be incomplete.
>>
>> It is not a technical standard recommendation like others in W3C. We must
>> find a way of writing a document that could help people to publish, in
>> terms on general recommendations. I do not think that this general
>> orientation has no usefulness. It is one of the challenges of the group to
>> find that blend, between the technical and the informal text.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Laufer
>>
>> 2015-03-15 18:58 GMT-03:00 Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>:
>>
>> All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wasn’t able to be on the call so I am not entirely sure in what
>>> context Yaso made this comment, but I have been thinking along the same
>>> lines. It seems to me that the current best practices try to take a fairly
>>> general view, and maybe that is not good.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If we try to define best practice for any type of data and any type of
>>> technology, we’ll end up in very general statements like “provide metadata”
>>> and “provide data in open formats”. How useful is that? How many people in
>>> the world are going to say: o gosh, I hadn’t thought of that? I’d say
>>> no-one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For example we now say in Best Practice 7: Provide data provenance
>>> information: Use the Provenance Ontology [PROV-O] to describe data
>>> provenance. Great, but what people really want to know is, how? And they
>>> want to see how others are using PROV-O in practice. Or in Best Practice 3:
>>> Use standard terms to define metadata: Metadata is best provided using RDF
>>> vocabularies. There is nothing actionable in that advice, which means that
>>> no-one is going to do anything with it, unless they already know how to do
>>> that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe it would be more useful if we did indeed focus on Linked Open Data
>>> – in some of the work that I have done, I noted that best practices for LOD
>>> is something that people are screaming for. Maybe we should limit this work
>>> to cover advice for publishing tabular data using the DataCube vocabulary
>>> and how to use DCAT for that kind of datasets, with good examples of
>>> existing applications and Application Profiles of DataCube and DCAT, with
>>> additional advice on when and how to use PROV, VOID, VOAF – again with good
>>> examples from existing implementations to show how it can be done.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So in summary, I think that the more specific these best practices are,
>>> the more useful they are going to be. I understand this is completely the
>>> opposite of what Carlos was arguing, but I don’t think people are going to
>>> be excited about general advice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Makx.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *De:* yaso@nic.br [mailto:yaso@nic.br]
>>> *Enviado el:* 13 March 2015 15:30
>>> *Para:* Public DWBP WG
>>> *Asunto:* document biased toward linked data practices
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>>
>>> About what I said today at the end of the call:
>>>
>>> If we can't think in use cases where Data on the Web is not also Linked
>>> Data, shouldn't we agree that this Best Practices Document can and need to
>>> be biased towards Linked Data Best Practices Document?
>>>
>>> The BPs doc says at the intro: "The best practices described below have
>>> been developed to encourage and enable the continued expansion of the Web
>>> as a medium for the exchange of data."
>>>
>>> Imho, it closes the issue raised [1], helps us to decide about open
>>> issues [2] and make things more clear about the scope of the deliverables -
>>> and reinforces what phil said today about the "and if you don't want to use
>>> it then don't complain" :-)
>>>
>>> Particularly, I think that we should keep our mind open, even that this
>>> is to think in situations whether there can be data on the web that is not
>>> linked data (not trivial, if not impossible?). Somehow this is connected
>>> with conversations that we left behind, as well as the conversation about
>>> protocols, for example. Maybe a note of the working group...
>>>
>>>
>>> Salut,
>>> Yaso
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/144
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>> .        .   . ..
>> .     ..       .
>>
>
>


-- 
---

Carlos Iglesias.
Internet & Web Consultant.
+34 687 917 759
contact@carlosiglesias.es
@carlosiglesias
http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en