Re: Feedback on Ingredients for High Quality Linked Data section of Linked Data Cookbook

Hi,
Thanks Charles for your review & feedback on the Linked Data cookbook.  You make a good point about describing the relationship between Linked Data and business rules more explicitly.  Your example is a good one.

Thank you, I'll add some language around that and let you know when it is in so you can review it.  

Cheers,

Bernadette Hyland, co-chair 
W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
Charter: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/

On Apr 16, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Charles Hoffman wrote:

> This is a great working group, nicely organized.  In particular the Linked Data Cookbook is quite useful.
>  
> I do have some feedback for the High Quality Linked Data section of that Linked Data Cookbook.
>  
> It is my view that one thing missing from the list of items necessary for high quality linked data is business rules.  In particular computations or relations between information items.
>  
> This is a very good summary/example of what I am taking about and way I have this position:
>  
> http://xbrl.squarespace.com/journal/2010/5/27/census-bureau-confirms-error-revises-data-set.html
>  
> The cliff notes are that the US Census Bureau published data, the format was CSV.  If the data were in RDF, the same issue would exist.  The data had an error in it.  It was not until I created business rules to be sure that my use of the data was correct that I discovered an error in the US Census data.  I found this error because I wanted to be sure the XBRL information I was creating was correct. As such, I created business rules, using XBRL, to verify that my data set was correct.  And that is how I found the error.
>  
> Said another way, if the data set had business rules provided WITH the data set, then (a) those providing the data would have become aware of the error and (b) those using the data could both better understand the relationships because they are articulated and they can validate the information prior to use to confirm that there is no error.
>  
> Thank you for considering this feedback.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Charles Hoffman, CPA