Re: Design issues 5-star data section tidy up

On 3/10/11 12:01 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> Oh dear - I knew I would join eventually.
> There is danger in actually defining terms when essentially we are talking about PR.
> This is not dishonest, it is pragmatic.
> The 5 stars are great, because they are so simple that any CEO or CTO thinks they can understand them.
> "Get me to 3 stars by yesterday!"

What happens when they hit #4 and CxO's team is dominated by <= Web 2.0 
types? Basically, RDF == RDF/XML, and it shall never be spoken of, in 
any capacity etc.. Do we go on an RDF crusade? Or do we veer to the 
Conceptual Schema (which is based on Logic) and show that the essence of 
the matter (powerful Distributed Data Objects endowed with Resolvable 
Identifiers)  can manifest via an number of formats etc.., at InterWeb 
scales.

RDF and SPARQL specificity is an unnecessary distraction and detraction 
to the powerful essence of InterWeb scale Linked Data.

RDF has its virtues, they'll manifest at the right time. Trouble is, 
those virtues aren't "conversation makers". In my experience, 100% of 
the time they're "conversation breakers" .

When TimBL initially dropped his Linked Data meme, there was no mention 
of RDF or SPARQL. That initial meme is/was GOLDEN. The current version 
is a major tactical regression. The 5-star narrative and mug 
illustration simply compound said tactical regression.

There is a FUD army out there awaiting all things Linked Data, pushing 
RDF + SPARQL via this star scheme plays right into their hands. Take it 
out, and they're in a tactical tizzy without exit.

I really don't enjoy belaboring this point, but you've forced me to 
point this issue out one more time.

We don't need RDF at the front door re. Linked Data. It has its place, 
and at the right time everyone will celebrate its prowess. There are no 
Syntaxes out there that aptly deal with typed literals and their 
intersection with "locale" oriented matters re. data access and 
integration like RDF. Trouble is, folks have to start using Linked Data 
before hitting these problems. Same applies to the ultimate power of 
RDF/XML re., transformations (machine-machine); as we know first hand 
via our development of 70+ sponger cartridges that all exploit RDF/XML.

Marketing is about groking the audience and then fashioning a tactical 
plan for attention capture and eventual value prop. delivery. Premature 
optimization is always problematic - even when it comes to Marketing and PR.

> Anything more complex (two scales, etc.) would completely undermine this.
> I could argue step for step why each is not exactly right, probably with all the problems already mentioned, but that reminds me of minor (and irrelevant) political parties arguing over the exact meaning of phrases in their favourite book and expecting the world to care, rather than walk on by.
>
> By the way, on the open front:
> "Available on the web (whatever format), but with an open licence"
> I choose to parse this as the licence being open, not the data.
> That is, having a licence that I can examine is the most important thing, the content of the licence is not so relevant.
> It does not say
> "Available on the web (whatever format), but with an open content licence" or some such.
>
> OKFN open has been mentioned - if you want to see an OKFN view of open, I think
> http://blog.okfn.org/2010/10/15/open-licenses-vs-public-licenses/ helps.
>
> So let's just please fix the typos ("hsould be regisetred"!, and is there something missing at the end?) and get on with it - if people want other scales, then that is fine, but don't touch the 5 stars - they really work!

Maybe someone can move this content to a communal Wiki.  Once situated, 
the content can be fixed and endowed with  "related" links etc..

Once TimBL is less busy, he can update his data space etc.. :-)

Kingsley
> Cheers
> Hugh
>
> On 10 Mar 2011, at 14:50, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 15:15 +0100, Adrian Pohl wrote:
>>> Hello Martin,
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> And yes, I agree with Christopher that the extreme notion of "open" is an ideology, not a technology. Being able to automate the evaluation of what you can do with the data is a technology. Requesting that all data must belong to everybody with no strings attached is ideology.
>>> Nobody requests that "all data must belong to everybody with no
>>> strings attached" - this is only when you want to get five stars.
>> You need it for *any* stars:
>>
>> "1 star - Available on the web (whatever format), but with an open
>> licence" [1]
>>
>> The point is that the 5-star scheme requires open in the legal sense as
>> a prerequisite for getting on the scale at all, open in the technical
>> interoperability sense just helps you get more stars.
>>
>> Makes perfect sense for government data releases, which is the context
>> in which the scheme was developed I believe.
>>
>>> As I
>>> understand it the open requirement is very much in line with the
>>> history of the web as it evolves around open standards and was
>>> established to share knowledge. One has to respect that. It's
>>> compatibility (technical as well as legal) that matters, not ideology.
>>>
>>> You could write a "commercial definition" to define licensing
>>> standards for commercial data publishers to reach compatibility in the
>>> world of commercial data providers and non-open licenses...
>> Of course, and you would have achieved interoperability and great things
>> but following that wouldn't count for a single star on Tim's 5-star
>> scheme. Which I think is Martin's issue.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
>>
>>
>>


-- 

Regards,

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

Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 18:18:46 UTC