W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Request for pre-review of Linked Data Glossary

From: Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:35:33 +0100
Message-ID: <514990F5.1030609@eurecom.fr>
To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
CC: public-gld-wg@w3.org, Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
Hi Dave,
Thanks again for all your suggestions...
Many of them have been updated to the Glossary see the actual version 
here [1]
> Suggestions for the remainder ...
>
>  > 39. Hash URI Strategy
>
> Suggested rewrite:
>
> [[[
> Hash URI Pattern
>
> In creating and publishing Linked Data a key design decision is the
> pattern of URIs to use for the resources in the data. One aspect of that
> decision is whether to use "hash" URIs (URIs which end in a '#fragid'
> fragment identifier) or "slash" URIs (no fragment identifier). Hash URIs
> offer a simple way to separate the URI for the thing from the URL for a
> data document describing the thing. They are convenient when publishing
> small files of resources (e.g. small vocabularies) but limit
> implementation options and extensibility (because the fragment
> identifier is never seen by the data server).
> See also [Slash URI Pattern]
> ]]]

In the last sentence, is there any reference to refer to? Or it is 
widely known? At the moment, I've added the term but with a suggestion 
to be voted by the group.
> In which case also add:
>
> [[[
> Slash URI Pattern
>
> In creating and publishing Linked Data a key design decision is the
> pattern of URIs to use for the resources in the data. One aspect of that
> decision is whether to use "hash" URIs (URIs which end in a '#fragid'
> fragment identifier) or "slash" URIs (no fragment identifier). Slash
> URIs provide maximum flexibility since the data server will see the full
> URI when it is dereferenced.
> ]]]

Idem Hash URI pattern
>  > 43. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
>
> s/had/has/
>
> or
>
> s/had defined/defines and maintains/

I have chosen the first suggestion. Done!
>  > 44. Inference
>
> Suggested rephrase:
>
> s/To infer something is to create a new relationship./Inference is the
> process of deriving logical conclusions from a set of starting
> assumptions./

Done! Thanks.
>  > 48. Linked Data
>
> Suggested rephrase:
>
> [[[
> Linked data refers to a set of best practices for creating, publishing
> and announcing structured data on the Web. See [Linked Data Principles].
> Linked Data typically makes use of the RDF family of standards for data
> interchange (RDF/XML, Turtle) and query (SPARQL). Linked Data can be
> published by a person or organization behind the firewall or on the
> public Web. If Linked Data is published on the public Web, it is
> generally called Linked Open Data.
> ]]]

Done, with a slight modification in the 3rd sentence.
[[Linked Data is *not* the same as RDF, rather Linked Data uses the RDF 
family of standards for data interchange ( RDF/XML, N3, Turtle and 
N-Triples) and query (SPARQL).]]

>  > 50. Linked Data Principles
>
> Suggest deleting the last sentence, viz:
>
> [[[
> Linked Data Principles provide a common API for data on the Web which is
> more convenient than many separately and differently designed APIs
> published by individual data suppliers.
> ]]]
>
> I understand what it's saying, and there's some truth in there. But
> follow-your-nose linked data is not a sufficient API. If it were we
> wouldn't need the Linked Data Platform and LDA.
>

I don't understand your point here. Maybe rephrasing what you understand 
and pointing out the difference/link wiht Linked Data Platform may be 
helpful. WDYT?
>  > 52. Linked Open Data Cloud
>
> Suggest
>
> s/datasets/interconnected datasets/

Done! Thanks.
> I think that's a defining feature of the LOD Cloud.
>
>  > Linking Open Data Project
>
> I think this is supposed to be a new entry but is currently a run-on
> paragraph of "Linking Government Data"

Yes.
>  > 55. Machine Readable Data
>
> This doesn't seem to actually say what Machine Readable Data is, maybe
> that's too obvious.
>
> The example talks about machine and human readable data from the same
> page but uses *different* pages (wikipedia v. dbpedia).
>
> How about:
>
> [[[
> Machine readable data is data that is available in a format which a
> machine can usefully interpret and process. For example, if a set of
> figures is given in a table in a PDF file or an HTML page then it can be
> transmitted and displayed but can't be easily processed. Screen-scraping
> techniques may be able to reconstruct the tabular data from the
> formatted page but they are fragile and inconvenient. For this reason
> publishing data in a machine readable format qualifies for two-stars on
> the 5-star scale.
> ]]]

So, if we rephrase this, do we need to add terms like "Scrapping", 
"Screen scrapping" or "Data aggregation" ?
>  > 63. Ontology
>
> Suggested rewrite:
>
> [[[
> An ontology is a formal model of a domain. It describes the types of
> things that exist (classes), the relationships between them (properties)
> and the logical ways those classes and properties can be used together
> (axioms). The OWL (Web Ontology Language) family of languages provide a
> standardized-means for expressing and exchanging ontologies. It builds
> upon, and is compatible with, RDF.
> ]]]

Done. Thanks!

>  > 66. Open World
>
> s/external work/external world/
>
>  > 69. Persistent Identifier Scheme
>
> Has a spurious ">"

Done.
>  > 70. Predicate
>
> Suggested rephrase:
>
> [[[
> The predicate is the second part of an RDF statement and gives the
> property which connects the subject of the statement to the object of
> the statement. Thus in the informal statement "Alice knows Bob" then
> "knows" is the predicate which connects "Alice" (the subject of the
> statement) to "Bob" (the object of the statement). The term predicate
> derives from predicate calculus. In RDF we use the terms predicate (for
> the role) and property (for the thing that plays that role) regardless
> of whether the value of the property is a simple literal or some other
> resource.
> ]]]

Added. Thanks!
>  > 74. Quad Store
>
> Suggest adding:
>
> [[[
> This notion has been clarified and standardized in SPARQL in the form of
> /RDF Datasets/.
> ]]]

Done!
>  > 76. Raw Data
>
> That's very contentious, suggest dropping this entry.
>
> [The issue is that to a statistician "raw data" is observed data that
> has not yet been aggregated, analysed and validated. In that world
> releasing raw data without extreme care to qualify it is correctly
> regarded as professional bad practice. Given how much government data
> falls in the area of statistics then a huge amount of confusion,
> antagonism and justified horror was caused by the cry of "raw data now".
> Government statistical authorities go to a lot of trouble and have legal
> statutory obligations on what data standards have to be met by releases
> of statistical data.]

Maybe we can just change it "Source Data" as it is in the BP doc? See [2]
>
>  > 83. RDF-JSON
>
> That reference is *not* a W3C recommendation (to my great sadness) it is
> an editor's draft which I don't think is progressing anywhere. Instead
> W3C is doing json-ld.
>
> Probably the best thing is to drop this entry.
>
> [Though part of me wants it to stay in just as it is :)]

And what if we don't drop it (for now) and correct that it is draft?
Well, I propose to vote here.
>
>  > 84. RDF Schema
>
> s/schema language/vocabulary language/

Done!
>
>  > 90. Schema
>
> Given how much people confuse schemas, logical data models and
> ontologies then I'm not happy with the statement that an ontology is a
> form a schema.
>
> However, I don't know enough about why schema is on this list and what
> you mean by schema in this context to offer a rephrase.
>
> Any chance of just dropping it?

I thing it could remains and can justify the different "schemas" (e.g. 
in UML) we have sometimes in the documentation of our vocabulary.
What about this one:

[[ Schema:
A data model that represents the relationships between a set of 
concepts, [e.g. using UML diagram].  Some types of schemas include 
relational database schemas.]]
>
>  > 94. Semantic Web Standards
>
> Add SPARQL.

Added!
>  > 99. SPARQL
>
> The SPARQL 1.1 reference link is broken.
>
Fixed!
>  > 106. Triple
>
> s/a verb, or//
Thanks!
>
> [A predicate is not necessarily a verb-like-thing, it is at least as
> often an adjective-like-thing.]
>
I prefer the "verb-like-thing" vision of a predicate when explaining the 
basics of this concept, with relation to the well-known "subject - verb 
- complement" in natural language.
> [Technically a triple is not the "smallest possible RDF graph". An RDF
> graph is defined as a set of statements and the smallest set is the
> empty set. But that probably sounds like splitting hairs so I don't mind
> that bit staying :)]
>
>  > 109. Turtle
>
> s/as,/as/
Thanks again, Dave!

Cheers,
Ghislain


[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/glossary/index.html
[2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html#source-data


-- 
Ghislain Atemezing
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
Campus SophiaTech
450, route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
e-mail: auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr & ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8178
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 10:36:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:38 UTC