- From: <yaso@nic.br>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:25:25 -0300
- To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <550B1495.4050900@nic.br>
Dear Berna (and Newton and Caroline) On 03/19/2015 12:21 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote: > > Hi all, > > We agree that we should consider a broader scope in the BP document > instead of focusing on Linked Data. Yes, I know that! So, we can assume that the issue is closed? > As mentioned before, we should keep BPs independent, and on the > possible approach to implementation be more specific. > > When possible and necessary, we may propose possible approaches for > implementation that use Linked Data and Semantic Web concepts, like > RDF and ontologies. Yes, indeed. My question is: should we propose implementations that do not use LD concepts also? (to diminish the bias cited on the issue? Or not?) > The LD bias that Carlos mentioned in the current version of the BP > document concerns mainly the vocabulary section as well as when we > propose the use of some specific vocabularies. However, as said > before, it shouldn't be a problem to propose the use of specific > technologies in the possible approach to implementation section. It is > important that we try to show HOW to use them when publishing data on > the Web. > > @Yaso, just to make it more clear, could you please tell us, in your > opinion, which use cases are based or have requirements based on > linked data? There are 14 of our BP that *explicitly* cites Linked Data as principle in the applilcations and we have 25 use cases. I can make a list if you want, but I think is not necessary... yaso > > Thanks! > Bernadette, Caroline and Newton > > 2015-03-19 11:11 GMT-03:00 yaso@nic.br <mailto:yaso@nic.br> > <yaso@nic.br <mailto:yaso@nic.br>>: > > > That's precisely what I'm proposing, Steve, sorry if I wasn't > perfectly clear :-) > I'm gonna try again: > > The issue says: > "The technological bias in several parts of the document (outside > implementation techniques), and specially in the vocabularies > section." > > Carlos made a copy [1] of the BP doc at google and there are many > comments there made by others that can make the document more > general to other approaches than LD, and the thread goes on until > this email [2], where he says that: > > "nobody is trying to censor LD here in any way. The discussion is > just about what're the right places and sections in the document > to make reference to specific technologies " > > I could say that I'm not trying to censor non LD data also. What I > am saying is that: > > 1: YES, the document has a technological bias towards LD; > 2: that's because we have many use cases that are, or aims to be > about open linked data, or need to be, or have requisites to be > linked data; > 3: we could think in new use cases, or take chance on some use > cases that we already have - like the one about data enrichment - > or collect some about microdata, dataspaces or web APIs to work on > open data that is not Linked data nor needs to be. > > If we can't think on use cases like that, to make requirements > about this situations and derive Best practices on that, then we > may have to admit that we will follow linked data and that is it. > > Independent of our solution I think we should make more specific > recommendations on LD to make the document more valuable, agreeing > with Makx's point. Maybe we need TF to one or another solution. > > salut > yaso > > > 1 - > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ecwweAM5t4UVFEjcXnFhXmCUBnRDvwZ1smRLtiKkBEI/edit > 2 - > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Feb/0081.html > > > > > On 03/19/2015 10:07 AM, Steven Adler wrote: >> >> Yaso, >> >> I would urge the group to retain the linked data we have in the >> BP document and to focus on adding BP recommendations for Open >> Data that is not linked to create the right balance. >> >> That way what we create is not subtractive of the good work we >> have already done. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Steve >> >> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again" >> >> Inactive hide details for "yaso@nic.br" ---03/18/2015 10:48:05 >> PM---Hi all Thanks Carlos, Annette, Augusto and Eric for your >> co"yaso@nic.br" <mailto:yaso@nic.br> ---03/18/2015 10:48:05 >> PM---Hi all Thanks Carlos, Annette, Augusto and Eric for your >> considerations. >> >> >> From: >> >> >> "yaso@nic.br" <mailto:yaso@nic.br> <yaso@nic.br> >> <mailto:yaso@nic.br> >> >> To: >> >> >> "Augusto Herrmann" <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com> >> <mailto:augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>, "Public DWBP WG" >> <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> <mailto:public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> >> >> Date: >> >> >> 03/18/2015 10:48 PM >> >> Subject: >> >> >> Re: document biased toward linked data practices >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Hi all >> >> Thanks Carlos, Annette, Augusto and Eric for your considerations. >> >> @Augusto, we are discussing this because there is an open issue >> to resolve. >> >> For me it is clear that there is a lot of linked data at the BP >> document, even more clear now with the comments. If we don't want >> that, then we have to work towards new use cases or situations >> where we best practices for data on the web can be useful. >> >> @Carlos, I wrote the BP on RESTful APIs (or part of it) because I >> noticed that it was not mentioned an that there was not even an >> specific use case for that, although I inserted the "data access" >> as the requirement for it. >> >> I think that maybe we should think in making an effort to cover >> more non linked data with new use cases, if we agree that the doc >> need it. >> >> >> >> Yaso >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my HTC >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Augusto Herrmann" <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com> >> <mailto:augusto.herrmann@gmail.com> >> To: "Public DWBP WG" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> >> <mailto:public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> >> Subject: document biased toward linked data practices >> Date: Wed, Mar 18, 2015 22:56 >> >> +1 to Carlos, Eric and Annette. >> >> In my experience with open data projects, the feasibility of >> doing Linked >> Data is rare, that is in the few cases this is even a consideration. >> >> The fact is that modelling your business domain into a vocabulary >> has a >> cost. Even if it has a good ROI in the long run for the benefits >> in data >> integration and interoperbility, many resource starved OD >> initiative simply >> lack the resources for going that extra mile. >> >> I agree with Carlos that RESTful APIs are great examples of data >> deeply >> ingrained on the web, especially if they make good use of hypermedia >> (HATEOAS). The fact that search engines do voraciously index each >> individual resource in any such APIs is a testament to that. >> >> Actually I'm quite surprised to see this issue being discussed >> this far >> into the WG lifetime. I remember taking part in the initial >> conference >> calls and non-linked data seemed to me to have always been in scope - >> besides what's already written on the WG charter as Carlos and >> Annette >> mentioned. >> >> My 2c. >> >> Augusto >> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Annette Greiner >> <amgreiner@lbl.gov> <mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote: >> >> > +1 to Carlos. I would not like to see this group become focused >> only on >> > LOD. I think the charter[1] is clear that we are to consider >> more than >> > that.The preamble states, >> > >> > "There are disparities between different developers too: for >> many, data >> > means CSV files and APIs, for others it means linked data and >> the two sides >> > are often disparaging of each other.” >> > >> > The mission is also clear, especially point 3: >> > >> > 1. to develop the *open data ecosystem*, facilitating better >> > communication between developers and publishers; >> > 2. to provide *guidance to publishers* that will improve >> consistency >> > in the way data is managed, thus promoting the re-use of data; >> > 3. to *foster trust in the data* among developers, whatever >> technology >> > they choose to use, increasing the potential for genuine >> innovation. >> > >> > -Annette >> > >> > [1] _http://www.w3.org/2013/05/odbp-charter_ >> > -- >> > Annette Greiner >> > NERSC Data and Analytics Services >> > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >> > 510-495-2935 <tel:510-495-2935> >> > >> > On Mar 18, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Carlos Iglesias >> <contact@carlosiglesias.es> <mailto:contact@carlosiglesias.es> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > On 15 March 2015 at 22:58, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> >> <mailto:mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> >> >> > >> > In my experience I'd say many, otherwise we should be currently >> seeing >> > more metadata and open formats in practice and that's not >> happening. >> > There is nothing wrong with BPs being quite simple and evident. >> The good >> > thing of BPs is precisely their guiding and reference character. >> > In addition, there is nothing preventing us from going deeper >> through >> > implementation techniques with specific technologies. >> > >> > >> >> 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. >> >> >> > >> > Then you can provide specific implementation techniques for those. >> > >> > >> >> 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. >> >> >> > >> > Yes, asking for LOD support is usual when you work on a LOD >> project or >> > environment and quite the opposite when not. Have been working >> on around 50 >> > different OD projects during the last 6 years and I think that >> maybe just >> > 10% asked for LOD techs. As another example I have recently >> participated in >> > the evaluation of 300+ proposals for OD based businesses and >> only roughly >> > between 2-3% were planning to be using LOD at any extent. In >> general I >> > noted that LOD is something people is not usually screaming for >> except in >> > some specific scenarios. >> > >> > 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. >> >> >> > >> > This looks more like a quite specific guide than a best practices >> > document, no? >> > I think this would be a great idea as an additional WG note with an >> > implementation example, but not as a replacement of the BPs >> themselves. >> > >> > >> >> 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. >> >> >> > >> > I think some of the most popular recs at W3C in the past were such >> > "general advice" e.g. WCAG, MWBPs... >> > I think that making BPs generic and tech neutral is a BP itself. >> > I think that having good generic BPs is also compatible with >> much more >> > specific advice (in the form of implementation techniques). >> > I think we should be only focusing on LOD if we agree first on >> modifying >> > the charter and the document name and scope. >> > >> > Best, >> > CI. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Makx. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *De:* yaso@nic.br <mailto: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 <tel:%2B34%20687%20917%20759> >> > contact@carlosiglesias.es <mailto:contact@carlosiglesias.es> >> > @carlosiglesias >> > _http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en_ >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > -- > Bernadette Farias Lóscio > Centro de Informática > Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 18:24:40 UTC