- 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