- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:29:43 +0200
- To: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-gld-wg@w3.org
Hi John, On 9 Sep 2011, at 20:17, John Erickson wrote: > * A use case might be a harvester that is de-referencing catalog URIs > (as if they existed...) and dataset URIs for the purposes of > aggregation. This use case doesn't require the feature you ask for – it doesn't even mention “official” or “non-official” catalogs. The use case above can already be addressed with dcat as it is, IMO. A use case for distinguishing “official” from “non-official” catalogs would be something that cannot be done (or would be much harder) unless this new feature is added to the data catalog standard. (David offered a use case, but one that requires more complexity than the simple boolean flag you asked for.) Also, I'm still not sure what you actually mean by “official”. Without a sufficiently clear definition this would be far too subjective to be useful. > You can get into nit-picking; for example, catalog and dataset > metadata scraped (non-authoritative) from a government site > (authoritative, official) because they don't provide the metadata... Nitpicking is a key activity in standardization… Best, Richard > > John > > David notes: >> Since the UN can publish drafts as well as certified datasets, it seems like this requires at least a classification of organizations that publish linked data and a classification of individual datasets, and perhaps a third being the classification of catalogs themselves although not sure how useful that is unless some aggregators are not trusted... > > * So I think this sort of "certification" of at least > publishers/providers would work for particular kinds of certification > --- some office of the UN denoting a country's "official" provider. > One could even imagine how delegation would work. > * David's proposed system of "levels of approval" would work, esp. if > the relying service checked where assertions came from > * To be consistent with the Open World assumption, there does also > need to be a way that status can be expressed in a de-centralized way. > It's up to the policies governing the relying system how to use the > assertions that it finds... > > John > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:33 AM, David Price <dprice@topquadrant.com> wrote: >> Some organizations have more authority than others - so UK Home Office might >> publish linked data, but so might ISO or the UN or TopQuadrant. Some >> datasets have different levels of 'official-dom' - drafts vs. recommended >> for certain uses vs. certified as accurate and complete. Since the UN can >> publish drafts as well as certified datasets, it seems like this requires at >> least a classification of organizations that publish linked data and a >> classification of individual datasets, and perhaps a third being the >> classification of catalogs themselves although not sure how useful that is >> unless some aggregators are not trusted. >> >> At least one use case I've seen is that in some large organizations, when >> starting a new programme they select resources to use based on a preferred >> sequence of authorities and levels of approval (i.e. ISO International >> Standards, and if not available W3C Recommendations, and if not available >> ISO Technical Specifications, and if not available UK government agencies, >> and if not available ...). I know this use case is applicable to >> organizations as diverse as ISO in deciding normative references when making >> standards and in US DOD when approving resources for a new equipment or >> research programme. >> >> Cheers, >> David >> >> On 9/8/2011 10:33 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >>> >>> On 6 Sep 2011, at 21:27, John Erickson wrote: >>>> >>>> Questions have arisen as to how to indicate the "official" status of a >>>> catalog and/or individual dataset. For example, there are a large >>>> number of datasets that are the only source of data for a country but >>>> are "Non-government." No properties in DCAT [1] or our own prototype >>>> [2] express this adequately. This is important because consumers of >>>> catalog metadata must be able to determine whether a source has >>>> official status or not... >>> >>> You use scare quotes around the words “official” and “non-government”. >>> >>> Can you give a better definition of the distinction you're drawing? >>> >>> What's the use case for this? >>> >>> Best, >>> Richard >>> >> >> >> -- >> Managing Director and Consultant >> TopQuadrant Limited. Registered in England No. 05614307 >> UK +44 7788 561308 >> US +1 336-283-0606 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > John S. Erickson, Ph.D. > Dir, Web Science Ops, Tetherless World Constellation (RPI) > <http://tw.rpi.edu> > olyerickson@gmail.com > Twitter: @olyerickson > Skype: @olyerickson >
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2011 14:30:18 UTC