- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:09:27 -0400
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51C9DCD7.9040101@openlinksw.com>
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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 18:09:51 UTC