- From: Carlos Iglesias <contact@carlosiglesias.es>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:34:15 +0100
- To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Cc: "yaso@nic.br" <yaso@nic.br>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAa1XznTwORuWD9_YoXgZ_2XB9iggv_UrZ9JzcLg=4aL9S-5Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Some more comments > >>>>I noticed that we based our use cases doc in use cases of the LD > world and as a consequence now we have a BP doc towards Linked Data - which > its not a bad situation, I think. > > That is a really interesting perspective, thank you for sharing this > insight. > A good point indeed, but also a bad situation if our intention was to not to produce a LD BPs document but a generic one. > >>>>Maybe if we use the call for the second round of use cases to collect > cases that do not rely on Linked Data concepts... > > In order to show variety in data on the web use cases I'm wondering now if > we overlooked the boring and mundane use cases that may make up a majority > of the data on the web. Did we "over think" use cases? > Definitively yes. If a significative number of the group members have strong LOD backgrounds it is not strange at all that we end up with a majority of LOD use cases at the expense of the "boring and mundane" ones Best, CI. > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:00 PM, yaso@nic.br <yaso@nic.br> wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> My comments are about the issue that says that the doc is biased towards >> LInked Data. I intent to agree with Makx, and I think whenever is the case >> to recommend the use of linked data approaches, we should do it. Maybe if >> we all agree that rely upon ld concepts is in our scope we can strengthen >> the power of our document even more. >> >> @laufer, I did not suggested throwing out our job, just reinforce it! >> >> Though I also think that we could explore the world of non liked data to >> recommend how to transform this data in Data on the Web, just like Steve >> and Eric said. I've been working on a rough translate to pt-br of the >> document, which is still in progreess [1], and I noticed that we based our >> use cases doc in use cases of the LD world and as a consequence now we have >> a BP doc towards Linked Data - which its not a bad situation, I think. >> >> Maybe if we use the call for the second round of use cases to collect >> cases that do not rely on Linked Data concepts we can increment the BP doc >> to embrace more of the mentioned World that Steve said :-) >> >> How does it sound fot the group? >> >> Regards, >> Yaso >> >> >> [1] >> https://hackpad.com/Melhores-prticas-para-Dados-na-Web-KSy3LYVj2EU#:h=Melhores-práticas-para-dados-n >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 03/17/2015 12:56 PM, Steven Adler wrote: >> >> i agree. We certainly want people to use Linked Data, and we can >> encourage its use through examples, but we must realize that over 90% of >> the world is not using Linked Data on the web and we must address the world >> as it is to have a chance to influence it to change. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Steve >> >> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again" >> >> [image: Inactive hide details for Eric Stephan ---03/17/2015 11:49:59 >> AM---I think that there is a way to describe best practices for d]Eric >> Stephan ---03/17/2015 11:49:59 AM---I think that there is a way to describe >> best practices for data in the web generally and then touch >> >> >> >> From: >> >> >> Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> <ericphb@gmail.com> >> >> To: >> >> >> Laufer <laufer@globo.com> <laufer@globo.com> >> >> Cc: >> >> >> Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> <mail@makxdekkers.com>, "Yasodara >> Cordova (yaso@nic.br)" <yaso@nic.br> <yaso@nic.br>, Public DWBP WG >> <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> >> >> Date: >> >> >> 03/17/2015 11:49 AM >> >> Subject: >> >> >> Re: document biased toward linked data practices >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> If we did only focus on linked data how do we differentiate ourselves >> from [1] [2] ? >> >> 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. >> >> >> Eric S >> >> >> References >> [1] *http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Main_Page* >> <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Main_Page> >> [2] *http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Main_Page* >> <http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Main_Page> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Laufer <*laufer@globo.com* >> <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* >> <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* <yaso@nic.br> [mailto:*yaso@nic.br* >> <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* >> <http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/144> >> [2] *http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/open* >> <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
Attachments
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 23:34:44 UTC