Re: Linked Data Glossary is published!

Hi Owen, Everyone,

The ISB StratML document has been converted to StratML Part2 as well as 
added and rendered to its respective Web site (1200) on the StratML 
portal, at
http://stratml.hyperbase.com/ISB.html

As usual, all StratML documents are also available for editing, in 
preloaded StratML Part2 forms, from the "Edit" link beside the 
corresponding entry in the alphabetical StratML document list at
http://stratml.hyperbase.com/documents.html.

The other StratML portal indexes have also been updated accordingly, as 
well as the stakeholders and statistics pages, respectively at
http://stratml.hyperbase.com/stakeholders.html
http://stratml.hyperbase.com/statistics.html

Regards,

Andre Cusson
514 583 0601
01 COMMUNICATIONS


> +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_%28law%29>” … 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 
> <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 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:mkanzaki@gmail.com>"].
>