- From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <1351180150.45975.YahooMailNeo@web112606.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
This is very dated, been failing at this for years :-) It does not provide any guidance, per se, but rather reflects my feeling that metadata as hidden data (to make the page author look like a genius) is just a really bad, one-way, non-transparent idea. It makes Discovery, Serandipity and Alchemy hard to distinguish. "Common Names of Personally Identifiable Information" CC-BY-SA (have fun) http://www.rustprivacy.org/2011/pii/cnpii.xml --Gannon ----- Original Message ----- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com> To: public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org> Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:08 AM Subject: Property Guidance Hi, I came across a nice report on twitter yesterday (apologies, I can't recall from whom), which provides some guidance on creating Linked Data for Bibliographic Data: http://aims.fao.org/lode/bd Specifically it recommends a number of properties and provides guidance on how to select between alternatives. It includes some flow diagrams to help describe the selection -- something I've not seen before and which seems like a nice way to present the options. Has anyone done this in other circumstances? As an exercise I drafted a table (available in a Google Spreadsheet [1]) to start mapping out some guidance for Equivalence Links [2]. Does anyone have any comments? Cheers, L. [1]. http://bit.ly/equivalence-links-guide [2]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/equivalence-links.html -- Leigh Dodds Freelance Technologist Open Data, Linked Data Geek t: @ldodds w: ldodds.com e: leigh@ldodds.com
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 15:49:41 UTC