- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:40:36 +0000
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
- CC: public-gld-wg@w3.org
In addition to Dave and Makx's comments (which I agree with pretty much throughout), I'd like to add the following. Section 5, Metadata. More could be said there, for example, a link to DCAT and, as an example of how to use it, the EC's DCAT Application Profile (https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/asset_release/dcat-application-profile-data-portals-europe-final) written by Makx. 7. Licences The problem here is not that it's too American - there's useful info there - but that it's really only American. The line about Crown Copyright might lead to a reference to the UK Open Government Licence (http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/) for example. Many governments are in the process of working out how to licence their data (there are whole EU projects about it such as http://lapsi-project.eu/ but sadly that site is not guaranteed to be persistent so I'm hesitant to suggest linking to it. 8. Convert Data to Linked Data The sentence "This involves a data modeling step..." should link back to the modelling section. The sentence that ends "...mapping the source data into a set of RDF statements via a script" suggests, or might suggest to some, that there is 'a script' - i.e. a single tool for doing this. I would say something like 'programmatically' or 'through an automated process', 'using one of a variety of tools' etc. I think sections 10 & 11 should also be merged. URI construction is an important part of designing for persistence. That'll do for now - we can talk more on the imminent call. HTH Phil. On 17/12/2013 08:33, Dave Reynolds wrote: > Hi Bernadette, > > On 17/12/13 04:53, Bernadette Hyland wrote: >> Hi, >> Thanks for the review you did do. See inline below. >> >> On Dec 15, 2013, at 5:04 PM, Dave Reynolds <Dave.e.Reynolds@gmail.com> >> wrote: > >>> # 4 Data Modelling >>> >>> Not sure what value this section adds, it says too little. Should >>> either say more or say that modelling advice is out of scope. >> >> Will beef up with a bit more description to make it clear the modeling >> step is really important. In the real world we face people who heard >> there is a 'convert to RDF' tool and they cannot distinguish between >> auto-magic conversion vs. well-modeled content that uses standard >> vocabs & is expressed as something others can re-use. > > I'm not sure beefing this up is the way to go. > > Fully agree that the modelling step is really important. But it's not > clear to me that we could reach consensus on best practices for > modelling within the short time left. We already have sections on > ontology selection and ontology creation which are arguably the major > part of modelling. [Though our advice on creation doesn't actually tell > you anything about how to develop one.] > > My suggestion would be to say words to the effect of: > * Modelling is really important. > * Advice on detailed modelling is out of scope for this document. > * A key part of modelling is selecting or developing appropriate > ontologies, some advice on this is contained in the following sections ... > > Cheers, > Dave > > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 14:40:42 UTC