RE: Linked Data Glossary is published!

+1 to Michael's comment!  Why would XML files conforming to published XSDs
with all of their elements clearly defined in plain English not merit 4
stars?

 

In any event, it would be good to address in the linked data glossary the
concept of the "four corners of the document
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_corners_(law)> " . or at least explain
why the LOD community has chosen to ignore the requirement it represents.

 

One definition of the term "document" is: "Data in context."  Without
context, data is meaningless. at least in a legal sense.

 

BTW, ISB's about statement is now available in open, standard,
machine-readable StratML Part 1
<http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/index.htm#Part1> , Strategic Plan, format.
When Andre Cusson has imported it into his StratML portal
<http://stratml.hyperbase.com/stratml.html> , his XForms form
<http://www.hyperbase.com/xml/cosmos/resource/apps/stratedit.xml>  could be
used to establish links between ISB's <PerformanceIndicator>s and
<Goal>s/<Objective>s in other plans, using the <Relationship> element of
StratML Part 2 <http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/index.htm#Part2> , Performance
Plans and Reports, to cite the <Identifier>s of the related
goals/objectives.  

 

Would that not constitute linked open data? 5 stars?

 

The vision of the StratML standard is: A worldwide web of intentions,
stakeholders, and results . i.e., the *Strategic* Semantic Web. connections
between people . for a purpose - to accomplish shared objectives.  6 star
data?

 

Owen Ambur

Chair, AIIM StratML Committee
<http://www.aiim.org/Research-and-Publications/Standards/Committees/StratMLC
:/Users/Owen%20Ambur/Documents/Ambur%20Children%20Tax%20Info> 

Co-Chair Emeritus, xml.gov <http://xml.fid.gov/>  CoP

Communications/Membership Director, FIRM <http://firmcouncil.org/index.htm> 

Former Project Manager, ET.gov <http://ambur.net/et/ETGovHistory.htm> 

Invited Expert, W3C eGov IG
<http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=42481&public=1> 

 

 

From: Michael Miller [mailto:Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:24 AM
To: KANZAKI Masahide; John Erickson
Cc: Bernadette Hyland; W3C public GLD WG WG; Linked Data community; egov-ig
mailing list; HCLS
Subject: RE: Linked Data Glossary is published!

 

hi all,

 

XML takes on many levels of machine readability.  i would argue that if XML
came with an DTD/XML schema it is at least 3 star and possibly 4 star.  that
at least was my experience with MAGE- ML (i'd say 3 star) and the clinical
XML for the TCGA project (4 star)

 

cheers,

michael

 

Michael Miller

Software Engineer

Institute for Systems Biology

 

 

From: KANZAKI Masahide [mailto:mkanzaki@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 7:19 PM
To: John Erickson
Cc: Bernadette Hyland; W3C public GLD WG WG; Linked Data community; egov-ig
mailing list; HCLS
Subject: Re: Linked Data Glossary is published!

 

Hello John, thanks for reply, very much appreciated.

 

2013/7/2 John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>

Thus, I think we should distinguish between "plain old XML" and Office
Open XML/OOXML/OpenXML; based on my understanding and what I read <>
OpenXML could be listed as an example three-star format.

 

Well, that's true. I hope this distinction will be incorporated into this
glossary, rather simply showing "XML" as 2-stars example (which is
misleading not only for me, but also for others around me).

 

 

* I think the POINT is that the data should be published in a way

suited for machine consumption. A format should NOT be considered
"machine readable" simply because someone cooked up a hack on
Scraperwiki for getting the data out of an otherwise opaque data dump
on a site

 

Yes, it is desirable that data is published for machine "consumption" in
Linked Data space, though my point was that the term "Machine Readable" is
too general to be redefined for LD perspective. 

 

 

* The argument against having a separate term is simply that
(arguably) the common case for publishing "machine readable" data *is*
structured data, and adding the a special "structured" category merely
confuses adopters.
* The argument for a new term is, if the reason we want "machine
readable data" is because we expect (and usually get) structured data,
then we should specify that what we REALLY want is "machine readable
structured data..." (and explain what that means)

 

Well, "machine readable" data is *not necessarily* structured in general, so
the second argument seems more reasonable, although I'm not arguing to add
separate term, rather, thinking it is not good idea to redefine term
"machine readable" just for a specific community.

 

 

Thank you very much for the discussion.

 

cheers,

 

 

-- 
@prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig# <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig> >
. <> :from [:name
"KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "mkanzaki@gmail.com"].