Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

Melvin,

I have no intention to change the title of the document, I just tried to
clarify the interpretation of the 5 stars rating systems. Hopefully I get
it right and I am not the only one in the world to understand it this way :)

Stephane


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On 21 June 2013 17:32, Stephane Fellah <fellahst@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
> Well if you're going to change the text of the document, it's not going to
> be that hard to get it to conform to your world view.  Perhaps you find
> this hard to countenance, but please do appreciate that others may not
> share your world view.  The web has always been more about tolerance that
> it has about dogma.  The paradox of the whole thing is that tolerance
> brings people together, and imposing your opinion on others moves people
> apart.  If you feel strongly about rewording the linked data document,
> perhaps start another thread and it may gain some traction.  But as this
> thread was about communication, let's try and be civil and get along :)
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>