- From: <Manuel.CARRASCO-BENITEZ@ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:27:22 +0000
- To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Here are my 1.5 cents :-) * 0 star Having 0 star data is better that not having 5 stars data. If one becomes too choosy, one end up without data. Even expensively produced data is far from perfect. * Identifier Data must have an identifier so one can find it. http://dragoman.org/comuri * Static data Give preference to static data; i.e., data that do not required processing to access it. This is an essential criteria for long-term preservation. http://dragoman.org/webdata.html#static-and-dynamic-data http://larry.masinter.net/0603-archiving.pdf * Simplest format "Structure the data, the how is secondary" Structured data can be programmatically be transformed into other formats. CVS is quite simple. http://dragoman.org/format * Human and Machine Format (HMformat) The same data should be in a format that it is both: human and machine readable. http://dragoman.org/hmformat.html * Package (or perish) Package the data with as much metadata and links to other data (à la LD) as possible. * Language neutral Data should be language neutral with facilities to expand the language strings. http://dragoman.org/mm.xml * Rating Either - Use the LD stars rating state it http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html - Create a new rating system and do not use the term "star" to avoid confusion Regards Tomas
Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 13:28:01 UTC