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

Re: glossary entry: 5 Star Linked Data

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 09:16:07 -0400
Message-ID: <51962D97.3030505@w3.org>
To: Ghislain Atemezing <atemezin@eurecom.fr>
CC: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>, Public GLD WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
On 05/16/2013 02:39 PM, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:
> Hi John,
> -------------
> Ghislain Atemezing
> EURECOM, Multimedia Communication Department
> Campus SophiaTech
> 450, route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France
> email: 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
> Le 16 mai 2013 à 19:05, John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> Pursuant to my action item, here are my comments on the 5-star Linked
>> Data definition bullets...

Thanks for starting this thread, John.

I'm not sure I see the advantage of making these imperative.   Isn't 
that like saying the definition of a "four minute mile" is "Run so fast 
that you go a mile in under four minutes" (instead of "a mile run in 
under four minutes")...?

To keep things simple in this discussion, I'm leaving them imperative in 
the edits below, for now at least.

Also, I think maybe prefix it with a note that the stars are 
cumulative.   Each one means "all of the above, plus...."

>> 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>
> To be more precise, the definitions we have in the Glossary come from this link: http://5stardata.info, which also provide some examples.
>> ★ 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)
> +1

Good, but let's include an example:

1-star = Publish your data on the Web in any format (eg PDF or JPEG 
image of a table of numbers) 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
> +0  because we still need to give examples of structured data…

2-star: Publish your data in a structured, machine-readable format (eg 
an application's own data files, perhaps in binary or XML)

>> ★★★ 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)
> +1 as I thing it solves the issue raised by Sandro.

3-star: Publish your data in a documented, non-proprietary format (eg 

>> ★★★★ 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)
> +1 as it is much more explicit

-1.   There is some controversy over whether the fourth star is about 
URIs, triples, or both.   I think the mug decides it, myself.    And 
since we have two stars left, I think it's best if we use one for each:

4-star: Publish an RDF (subject-property-value) view of your data (eg a 
Turtle file, or a SPARQL endpoint for a SQL database)

>> ★★★★★ 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
> -1. PROPOSE: All the above and include links (URIs) to other Linked (Open) Data in your published data.

5-star: When available, use common identifiers based on working links to 
useful or definitive data sources (eg use 
<http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i> as the id for Tim Berners-Lee)

       -- Sandro

>> Iterate on that…
> Many thanks for the proposals…
> Ghislain
>> 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 Friday, 17 May 2013 13:16:27 UTC

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