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

Re: glossary entry: 5 Star Linked Data

From: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:05:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC1Gg8Su+zNJh_2Sh0n_qEfGswP_46cmcDvtJMhGwXutAAfbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Public GLD WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Pursuant to my action item, here are my comments on the 5-star Linked
Data definition bullets...

NOTE: The definitions we use in the Glossary and below are the words
of TBL, added to his Linked Data design note ca 2010
<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html>

★ make your stuff available on the Web (whatever format) under an open license

* I've always felt the word "stuff" is too cute...
* PROPOSE: Publish your data on the Web in any format accompanied by
an explicit "open license" (expression of rights)

★★ make it available as structured data (e.g., Excel instead of image
scan of a table)

* PROPOSE: Publish your data in a common, structured, machine-readable format

★★★ use non-proprietary formats (e.g., CSV instead of Excel)

* I don't think we need to slam M$FT...
* PROPOSE: Publish your data in a non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV)

★★★★ use URIs to denote things, so that people can point at your stuff
 <= TBL's version
★★★★ Published using open standards from the W3C (RDF and SPARQL) <= GLD version

* PROPOSE: Publish your data using HTTP URIs as (resolveable) names
for things; when someone (or something) looks up a URI, return useful
information based on W3C standards (including RDF, XML, SPARQL)

★★★★★ link your data to other data to provide context <= TBL's version
★★★★★ All of the above and links to other Linked Open Data <= GLD version

* PROPOSE: Include links (URIs) to other Linked (Open) Data in your
published data

Iterate on that...

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> I went to review the glossary again, and got stuck on the first item.
>
> There's debate about whether Excel is "proprietary" -- I believe Microsoft
> claims it is not.  See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_format#Controversial
>
>
> And the fourth star is just wrong -- it could easily be read as allowing
> plain XML or plain HTML, since those are open standards from W3C.
>
> Lets use the words on the mug, with some additional commentary.
>
>       - s
>



-- 
John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director, Web Science Operations
Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
<http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2013 17:06:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:52:08 UTC