- From: Stephane Fellah <fellahst@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:32:06 -0400
- To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALfZuNoi7ted+A14F+Gc1uf6dzw=hYQpe9OTDTd9fwsykkL1MA@mail.gmail.com>
I agree with you David. Unfortunately the title of rating system (Linked Open Data) is often misinterpreted. The first 3 stars are really describing Open Data. The last two are really Linked Data. A better title could be: "From Data to Linked Data" . I often used the term of "Infocline" to describe the migration from data to knowledge Stephane On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > On 06/20/2013 02:09 PM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote: > >> <http://www.w3.org/**DesignIssues/LinkedData.html<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html> >> > >> Discussing 5-star Linked Open Data (2010 addition to this >> document created in 2006) -- >> >> ★ Available on the web (whatever format) but with >>> an open licence, to be Open Data >>> ★★ Available as machine-readable structured data >>> (e.g. excel instead of image scan of a table) >>> ★★★ as (2) plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV >>> instead of excel) >>> ★★★★ All the above plus, Use open standards from W3C >>> (RDF and SPARQL) to identify things, so that >>> people can point at your stuff >>> ★★★★★ All the above, plus: Link your data to other >>> people’s data to provide context >>> >> >> Now... RDF doesn't come in until you get a 4-star rating. >> >> Are all you folks who are arguing that Linked Data *mandates* >> RDF suggesting that 1-, 2-, and 3-star rated Linked Open Data >> is *not* Linked Data? >> > > Exactly. Read the criteria above for the stars, and think about it. > Suppose a JPEG image is placed on the web with an open license. Would it > make any sense to call it "Linked Open Data", just because it meets the > criteria for one star? Certainly not, as that would render the term > completely meaningless. And as a second example, notice that linking only > comes into play with *five* stars: data meeting the first four stars is not > even linked! It would not any make sense at all to call something "4-star > Linked Open Data" if it is not even linked! > > The only sensible interpretation of the stars is that they indicate > milestones of progress *toward* "Linked Open Data" -- *not* that there are > five levels of Linked Open Data. > > David > >
Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 15:32:33 UTC