Re: Comments on Linked Data Profile 1.0 Submission

Hi,

[pruning response]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi Leigh,
>
> Sorry for slow follow-up as well. I've included some comments where
> needed.
>
> Leigh Dodds <ld@talis.com> wrote on 07/11/2012 08:22:35 AM:
[...]
>> I understand the general aim, as clients do have more chance of
>> working with data if they can understand it. One might argue that this
>> applies just as well to schema terms as well as datatypes. For schema
>> you've encouraged some best practices and convergence on standard
>> terms. The same approach could be applied to datatypes.
>>
>> There's a matter of degree here too. Truly custom datatypes are
>> unlikely to be interoperable: there still isn't a well defined recipe
>> for defining them. However the XML schema datatypes are all
>> well-defined, if not always widely supported. As I pointed out, I
>> think more of them are in common use than the subset recommended in
>> the profile.
>>
>> In this kind of standardisation effort I think its worth surveying
>> usage to determine current practice and deciding the best route
>> forward.
>>
>
> Seems like a good suggestion, do you have any good references to start
> with?

Off the top of my head some good sources to look at would be:

* data type support in triple stores/SPARQL implementations. i.e. what
types are being natively supported?
* survey of type usage in the LOD cloud. Ought to be possible to query
some of the LOD caches and extra some metrics on usage of types.

Cheers,

L.

-- 
Leigh Dodds
Freelance Technologist
Open Data, Linked Data Geek
t: @ldodds
w: ldodds.com
e: leigh@ldodds.com

Received on Friday, 27 July 2012 17:12:29 UTC