- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:24:12 -0400
- To: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue.fig@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 05:09:12PM +0200, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote: > We are lacking actual use of Linked Data today, > and I feel that adding more complexity in the data model is likely to > create more barriers. There's the point. Is it really necessary to create more classes, more properties, and more triples in the data that is actually published? > I like the idea that the AP should be something that could be > implemented following different syntaxes, maybe including OWL, but not > excluding other approaches that wouldn't make it mandatory to declare > local properties and classes systematically when additional semantics > or constraints are needed. I also wonder about the training angle. I think we want to enable people to create application profiles pretty easily -- perhaps with menu-driven interfaces, and using their syntax of choice -- yet in a way that ensures that their data will play well as Linked Data. Asking people to conceptualize their data in terms of class semantics seems to set the barrier really high. Explaining the simpler notion of a Dublin Core application profile has been challenging enough. Should the design of good metadata require knowledge of OWL? Can OWL semantics really be stuffed under the hood of a clever interface? Tom -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 17:24:56 UTC