Re: Design issues 5-star data section tidy up

On 3/10/11 2:27 AM, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
> "Is that bad? For Linked Data to be useful, you need to be able to mix 
> and share.". Sorry but that's simply not true. For it to be useful *to 
> you*, perhaps, but (Closed) Linked Data still has massive value as a 
> technology and not all data should or can be fully open!

"Open" is about Standards. It isn't about Public or Private access.

>
> Linking and Openness are two unrelated, but great, things to do but 
> you can do them independently. There is still value in data which is 
> Linked but not entirely or even slightly open.

Again, "Open" is about standards. In case the data formats.

>
> Open is the gold standard, but it's not the only form of Linked Data. 

Trouble is that Linked Open Data (LOD) is yet another mangled moniker. 
It does mean (albeit awkwardly): Open Data (as defined by CKAN and 
friends) published using the Linked Data best practices espoused in 
TimBL's meme re. "How to inject Linked Data into the Web by leveraging 
AWWW and RDF".


Now in my world view, we also have Open Linked Data, this variant is 
about Hypermedia based Structured Data where the underlying conceptual 
schema is First-order logic based, and the representation formats are 
diverse i.e, not confined to RDF formats. In addition to being format 
agnostic re. SPO/EAV basis for constructing data representation, it 
works fine (without confusion) across Intranet and InterWeb realms. They 
key thing is that each Data Object has a Reference and its 
Representation an Address. Name and Addresses are URI based, with HTTP 
scheme as an option. Representation formats are Negotiable.

> There's a massive value to companies to produce Linked Intranets which 
> will link and use open data from outside, but certainly not be open.

They're "Open" (standards based) but not public. No different to ODBC, 
JDBC, ADO.NET etc.. behind a firewall. All of this provide standards for 
accessing Data.

>
> At the heart of our university are lectures. From a Linked data 
> perspective, these are a motherlode of linkage. A lecture is the nexus 
> point joining: A room, eg. <http://id.southampton.ac.uk/room/59-1257> 
> with a lecturer, eg. <http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/60> with a 
> number of students, with the URI of a Module 
> <http://data.southampton.ac.uk/module/COMP1004/2010-2011.html> and the 
> specific instance of that module 
> <http://id.southampton.ac.uk/module-instance/10622/2010-2011> and 
> resources for that lecture 
> <http://www.edshare.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/455> . However, unlike most 
> of our other data, it would take a huge policy decision to make this 
> information freely available, but I can still make it available in a 
> closed form to a student or staff member, upon authentication, which 
> means that they can still have it on an iphone app / google calendar etc.
>
> Linked is a technology.
How about what you do with Data as part of an enrichment process with 
Access and Integration in mind?
> Open is an ideology.
About standards, but historically always held captive by some ideology :-)
>
> As previously suggested, I think it would aid understanding to award 
> stars for the use of the technology, but only gold stars if you use an 
> open license otherwise people will get *nothing* for getting the data 
> out while they try to arrange a license.
>
> Right now <http://id.southampton.ac.uk/dataset/eprints> is technically 
> should get ZERO stars as it's very complex to work out what license we 
> have the right to use. Some of the abstracts of papers may legally 
> belong to publishers and it may be OK for us to publish and distribute 
> tham as data, but not to grant licenses on something we don't own. 
> This dataset is on two journeys, one ends with an open license (silver 
> to gold), one with it getting fully linked into the data web (* to 
> *****). They converge at the heady heights of 5 gold-star fully linked 
> and open data.

Personally, the star system is broken and somewhat ideological if it 
covertly mandates RDF and SPARQL. Anyway, my views on this are public. I 
don't want to start a debate on this matter, time will ultimately judge 
this issue as people come to comprehend what Linked Data is actually about.


Kingsley
>
> Egon Willighagen wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Martin Hepp
>> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>  wrote:
>>    
>>>> ★     Available on the web (whatever format), but with an open licence
>>>>        
>>> I fear that the "open" requirement as the entrance gate for the star schema means that e-commerce data will be excluded.
>>>
>>> Most providers of e-commerce data (offers, model data, images,...) will
>>> - want to put some constraints on the usage of their data or
>>> - cannot release the data under an open license because they are bound by their licensing conditions to the actual creator of the page.
>>>      
>>
>> Is that bad? For Linked Data to be useful, you need to be able to mix
>> and share. You need to be able to fix and redistribute. The 'open'
>> nature for LOD is for me the difference between LOD and LD... let this
>> closed e-commerce data be happy in the LD world, not?
>>
>> Dear Tim,
>>
>> may I request some clarification on what kind of 'Open' you are
>> referring to in the first star? Is this the Open Knowledge Foundation
>> kind of Open, which excludes the Non-Commercial clause (as on CKAN)?
>> Or is that allowed, and to only modification and redistribution matter
>> to you? Or perhaps you do have a completely different view on these
>> things.
>>
>> Egon
>>
>>    
>
> -- 
> Christopher Gutteridge --http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248
>
> You should read the ECS Web Team blog:http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/webteam/


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen