Re: The 5 stars path

+1!

Christophe

--
Sent with difficulties. Sorry for the brievety and typos...
Op 22 mrt. 2015 08:47 schreef "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>:

> I've just been reading through Friday's minutes and I see that this was
> the hot topic of the day. As ever, I'm sorry I wasn't able to be there.
>
> Let me add my 2 cents.
>
> LD forms a small part of the available data on the Web. It would be
> silly of us to push for everyone to convert their data into perfectly
> linked 5 star data before they make it available publicly or behind a
> pay-wall of some kind.
>
> What we *can* do IMO is:
>
> - Promote the publication of human readable metadata as Laufer has
> described;
>
> - promote the publication of machine readable metadata and then show how
> this can be (and is) done with RDF using DCAT as an example;
>
> - promote the publication of structural metadata which, for CSV at
> least, we have a very clear route - use the CSV on the Web work;
>
> - if Eric and Annette can provide similar examples for NetCDF that would
> be terrific (I'm out of my depth here).
>
> - We can leave it to the Spatial Data on the Web WG to handle spatial
> stuff (as they are leaving some of their generic issues to this group).
>
> As an aside, the CSV WG has resolved its issues now and is expecting to
> publish pretty much the stable version of its specs in the first week of
> April.
>
> If you publish data in your favourite format + structural metadata in
> whatever format goes with that (and the CSV WG is using JSON for its
> metadata) then you are providing a route through which your users can
> readily create 5 star data if they so wish. They may or may not use LD
> themselves but the concept behind it is, I hope, clear enough to readers?
>
>  From what I've read of Friday and the list since then, I dare t hope
> this is in line with the general mood of the WG?
>
> Phil.
>
>
>
> On 20/03/2015 18:09, Laufer wrote:
> > Thank, you, Eric.
> >
> > Abraços,
> > Laufer
> >
> > 2015-03-20 12:31 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Laufer and Bernadette,
> >>
> >> I raised an issue relating to this asking the question can we use 5 star
> >> as a metric and not a path?
> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/148
> >>
> >> Eric S.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <
> bfl@cin.ufpe.br
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Laufer,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the message! It is a very useful explanation!
> >>>
> >>> I fully agree with you: "In this dataset publishing I can see the idea
> of
> >>> publishing metadata and using standard vocabularies, but is not a LD
> >>> dataset."
> >>>
> >>> IMHO, we can use vocabularies to publish metadata, but we are not doing
> >>> linked data, i.e., there are no links between resources.
> >>>
> >>> I also agree that "we should differentiate the idea of a Best Practice
> of
> >>> a non LD dataset of the idea of an implicit Best Practice to go to a LD
> >>> dataset, that is what the 5 stars scale says.".
> >>>
> >>> If we have a BP whose implementation proposes the use of the RDF model
> to
> >>> publish data, then we are moving towards the 5 stars. It is important
> to
> >>> note that, publishind data using the RDF model may be just one of the
> >>> proposed approaches for implementation, i.e, we may show other ways of
> >>> publishing data without using RDF.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Bernadette
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2015-03-20 11:32 GMT-03:00 Laufer <laufer@globo.com>:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I will start my comment using an example:
> >>>>
> >>>> Someone publish a page where there are links to 2 files:
> >>>> a csv file with a dataset;
> >>>> a text file that explains the structure of the dataset, in natural
> >>>> language (metadata).
> >>>>
> >>>> In the page there are a lot of metadata provided in natural language,
> as
> >>>> for example, an overview of the dataset, license, organization,
> version,
> >>>> creator, rights, etc...
> >>>>
> >>>> At the same time, the page has an embedded dcat instance using rdfa
> >>>> where there are info about the dataset, the distribution, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> What I want to say is that we have here the metadata concept mixed
> with
> >>>> semantic web concepts, and it is a way of publishing data that, if
> all the
> >>>> things are well described, could be very useful to the society.
> >>>>
> >>>> In this dataset publishing I can see the idea of publishing metadata
> and
> >>>> using standard vocabularies, but is not a LD dataset.
> >>>>
> >>>> What I was discussing in the last meeting is: will we support in the
> >>>> document the idea that the best way to publish is LD. I am not saying
> that
> >>>> I am against or not the idea. I am favorable to LD. But we should
> >>>> differentiate the idea of a Best Practice of a non LD dataset of the
> idea
> >>>> of an implicit Best Practice to go to a LD dataset, that is what the 5
> >>>> stars scale says.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe is too much care with the words, sorry about this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best Regards,
> >>>> Laufer
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> .  .  .  .. .  .
> >>>> .        .   . ..
> >>>> .     ..       .
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> >>> Centro de Informática
> >>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> >>>
> >>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>
>