Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications

On 6/25/13 12:49 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> On 6/24/13 4:22 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 6/24/13 9:12 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>> On 6/24/13 2:44 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/13 6:23 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>>>> Hi Dominic,
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with the relevance of the effort, and wouldn't argue 
>>>>> against centralizing. Not everyone will have the resource to 
>>>>> search in a decentralized fashion...
>>>>>
>>>>> What worries me a bit is how to learn lessons for the past. As you 
>>>>> (or someone else) has pointed, there have been previous attempts 
>>>>> in the past.
>>>>> For example http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/
>>>>> I don't find the cases there super-technical. And is it really 
>>>>> from the past?
>>>>> Looking closer, it seems still open for contribution:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/submit.html
>>>>> Actually I have submitted a case there way after the SWEO group 
>>>>> was closed:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/Europeana/
>>>>>
>>>>> Now why do these things seem obsolete to newcomers?
>>>>> Just giving some account on what I've been involved in ...
>>>>>
>>>>> [Note: I'm sorry if sometimes it's going to read a bit as a rant. 
>>>>> It's not intended, just trying honestly to reflect the situation 
>>>>> ;-) It's also not purely about your case/requirement situation, 
>>>>> but I believe the issues are very similar!]
>>>>>
>>>>> [Perspective from the case providers]
>>>>> It's hard to know where to contribute. Existing don't often come 
>>>>> in the places where case owners are, or it's hard to tell whether 
>>>>> they're still open. And there's always a fresher initiative (like 
>>>>> the one you're trying to launch) which seems a good place.
>>>>> In fact I have actually created some updated description of the 
>>>>> Europeana case
>>>>> http://lodlam.net/2013/06/18/what-is-europeana-doing-with-sw-and-lod/
>>>>> But because the LODLAM summit was a more actual forum for me 
>>>>> recently, I've posted it there. And failed thinking of updating 
>>>>> the SWEO list, mea maxima culpa.
>>>>>
>>>>> [Perspective from the case gatherers] I have actually be involved 
>>>>> as 'initiator' of a couple of listing.
>>>>> 1. SKOS datasets (which are a kind of 'case for SKOS')
>>>>> We started with a web page:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/data
>>>>> but as the list was difficult to maintain we soon created a 
>>>>> community-writable wiki:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SKOS/Datasets
>>>>> As it seemed not modern enough, we've then encouraged people to 
>>>>> use the same DataHub platform as the LOD cloud:
>>>>> http://datahub.io/dataset?q=format-skos
>>>>> But both are not very active. And they contain a lot of dead links...
>>>>> 2. Library-related datasets:
>>>>> http://datahub.io/dataset?groups=lld
>>>>> That list, started by the Library Linked Data W3C incubator, went 
>>>>> alright as long as the group was running. Now I think the rate of 
>>>>> new datasets is really small, even though I *know* there are many 
>>>>> new ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both as SKOS community manager and former LLD co-chair, I've tried 
>>>>> to actively mail people to create descriptions of their stuff. But 
>>>>> it requires time. Most often they assume *you* would do it!
>>>>> And after a while, the supporters of such effort just have other 
>>>>> things to do and can't afford very high level of commitment.
>>>>>
>>>>> What should we do if we want to build on existing lists and not 
>>>>> re-invent the wheel every six months or so?
>>>>> Or is it worth sending a regular (monthly?) reminder to lists like 
>>>>> public-lod, reminding everyone that these lists are available and 
>>>>> open for contributions?
>>>>> Create a list of lists, as Wikipedia does?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Antoine
>>>>
>>>> Antoine,
>>>>
>>>> As you've indicated, there have been many attempts at this over the 
>>>> years and they never take-off or meet their goals etc.. The problem 
>>>> is that a different approach is required. Basically, in this 
>>>> scenario lies a simple Linked Data publication usecase i.e., a 
>>>> problem that Linked Data addresses.
>>>>
>>>> The steps:
>>>>
>>>> 1. use a Linked Data document to describe you product, service, 
>>>> platform, usecase
>>>> 2. publish the document
>>>> 3. make people aware of the document.
>>>>
>>>> Crawlers will find your document. The content of the document will 
>>>> show up in search results.
>>>>
>>>> The trouble is that confusion around Linked Data makes 1-3 harder 
>>>> than it needs to be. Then add RDF misconceptions to the mix, and it 
>>>> gets harder e.g., that you must have generally approved vocabulary 
>>>> before you get going, when in fact you don't.
>>>>
>>>> People need to understand that "scribbling" is a natural Web 
>>>> pattern i.e., rough cuts are okay since improvements will be 
>>>> continuous.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Kingsley
>>>
>>> Two practical objection to this otherwise interesting approach.
>>>
>>> 1. For that kind of survey, as for the rest, people want trust. it 
>>> will have to be curated (I mean, besides people just putting little 
>>> bits of uncontrolled/outdated data out there), or it will fly only 
>>> when thee distributed descriptions are harvested and accessible 
>>> through something like Google/schema.org.
>>> Btw people also want visibility. You don't say anything about step 3...
>>
>> You can sign documents. You can even sign claims. Even better, claims 
>> can be endorsed by others. These a issues naturally handled by Linked 
>> Data.
>>
>> Verifiable Identity and Trust are areas where Linked Data shines.
>>
>>>
>>> 2. It needs to be simple, as non-technical as possible. Step 1 is 
>>> already too much. Consider LD consumers, who don't publish any LD, 
>>> why would you ask them to publish an LD document?
>>
>> "simple" is subjective. There are many routes to the same destination 
>> here. For instance, some will happily craft Turtle by hand, others 
>> may do so using other concrete syntaxes. Of course, some would prefer 
>> an HTML5 form based interface too. The key is to be dexterous enough 
>> to handle profile variety.
>>
>>
>>> Actually even in organization that publish LD having step 2 and 3 
>>> will take some effort. Not much, I agree, but it won't be part of 
>>> the core business, and it will still need effort.
>>> Consider the need to have an (i) updated version; an (ii) 
>>> interoperable.
>>
>> It can be done, the problem has been that the approaches to date 
>> don't work and will never work. Thus, we need to try something 
>> different, one that's also a Linked Data dog-food exercise too.
>>
>>>
>>> Taking a concrete example: me (again, sorry!). A while ago I've made 
>>> a description of data.europeana.eu as a voiD file. Nice, but now I 
>>> hear that there's DCAT around and I should read the doc and update 
>>> my file. Oh, and my dataset has been also updated.
>>
>> There are even notification protocols that mesh nicely with Linked 
>> Data. Our problem is that there is too much fragmentation. 
>> Suggestions to tackle these issues via dog-food and "just do it!" 
>> patterns ultimately get lost is bizarre arguments rife with 
>> contradiction. If Linked Data is what is claims to be, then we can 
>> address these issues (collaboratively) via dog-food patterns.
>>
>>> And I've got no idea who will consume this updated file and whether 
>>> it will happen one day...
>>
>> The same thing applies to any content you put on the Web, you 
>> ultimately need an incentive to keep it up to date. The same thing 
>> applies to consumers too, they need an incentive to want to track etc..
>>
>>> And I've got a hell of other more urgent things to do. So anything 
>>> that won't be populated by a trivial adaptation of the blog post, 
>>> which I've already written, will have to wait for a while.
>>
>> Tweets and posts to other social media are effective mechanisms for 
>> discussion about data that aid discovery and curation. They can also 
>> be powerful incentive vectors.
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> 1. http://slidesha.re/Ys79Jn -- ontology life cycle presentation I 
>> gave to some ontologies earlier on this year (note: the presentation 
>> includes live links too).
>>
>
> Hi Kingsley,
>
> I'm sorry but all these leaves me with my practical issues on how to 
> do it. Your three points indeed hide a forest of technical / 
> organizational questions.
>
> http://dir.w3.org/ at least tells me how I should start. But of course 
> in order to fly it would need to be adapted, as Dave suggests, and 
> supported by the community!
>
> Antoine
>
>
>
>
Antoine,

I disagree.

I'll prove my point (the only way I know how) by just doing it :-)

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen