Re: Princples...

> The opportunity here is to present it as ‘virtual’ linked data.
>
> I.e. only generate a graph in response to a request

+1. This is also exactly what we did for steaming sensor data, i.e., a 
transparent RESTful proxy on top of a SOS that returns Linked Data/RDF. 
Of course, this comes with some restrictions but it seems like a fair 
compromise.



On 04/23/2015 06:42 AM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> The opportunity here is to present it as ‘virtual’ linked data.
>
> I.e. only generate a graph in response to a request. The canonical 
> expression of the query is in SPARQL, using the W3C datacube 
> vocabulary. An interface layer translates the request into the native 
> API. The LDA enables you to mask the query as a linked data URI.
>
> A provider should limit the size of responses, or use paging.
>
> A couple of layers of indirection/virtualization.
>
> ??
>
> *From:*Little, Chris [mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 23 April 2015 9:31 AM
> *To:* thiago.avila@ic.ufal.br; Taylor, Kerry (Digital, Acton)
> *Cc:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Princples...
>
> Thiago, Kerry
>
> Meteorology has use cases where linked data/RDF/triple stores/etc are 
> not appropriate. Take a large (~1TByte) 5 dimensional data cube 
> identified by only one URI/link, of one parameter, say the vector wind 
> speed and direction,  and it is replaced every 6 hours. The data is 
> all geo-referenced, and users wish to extract much more manageable 
> subsets.
>
> At this stage, I am not sure whether *all* practices of W3C Best 
> Practices for Publishing Linked Data <http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/>
>
> are helpful.
>
> Chris
>
> *From:*Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au 
> <mailto:Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>[mailto:Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2015 8:01 AM
> *To:* thiago.avila@ic.ufal.br <mailto:thiago.avila@ic.ufal.br>; 
> public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Princples...
>
> Thiago,
>
> I do not think we should be reiterating those practices – that is not 
> our job. It would be unfortunate if we were contradictory, though.
>
> In our case, it is not obvious to what extent this group is focusing 
> on linked data, or not, and I think our views in the group  may be 
> divergent.
>
> The UCR document should be “A document setting out the range of 
> problems that the working groups are trying to solve.”  So in that 
> context  I thought to bring up the question ( deliberately phrased in 
> the form that reflects my point of view!).
>
> Kerry
>
> *From:*Thiago José Tavares Ávila [mailto:thiago.avila@ic.ufal.br]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 23 April 2015 10:32 AM
> *To:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Princples...
>
> Hello Kerry,
>
> For 5th principle, Does geospatial data must follow all practices of 
> W3C Best Practices for Publishing Linked Data 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/> ?
>
> Regards. Thiago
>
> 2015-04-19 23:26 GMT-03:00 <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au 
> <mailto:Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>>:
>
> Here's 2 suggestions ( that may need improvement).
>
> No 5. That community good practice for 5 star linked data be followed, 
> including the use of so-called cool uris and  ontology annotations ( 
> references need to be attached)
>
> No 6. That ontologies  conform (" are valid" ? check) to the language 
> of  owl2 dl.
>
> (The latter is important for spatial and temporal reasoning.)
>
> No 7. ( perhaps number  0) That these principles are aimed 
> specifically at data published in RDF but where appropriate may also 
> apply to other spatial data published on the web.
>
>
> Kerry
>
> On 20 Apr 2015, at 8:17 am, "John Machin" <john.machin@abs.gov.au 
> <mailto:john.machin@abs.gov.au>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Ed, Andreas,
>
>     I like the proposed principles so far.
>
>     Based on some of the comments in the last call, I wonder if we
>     have to have a principle related to keeping the practices up to date?
>
>     I realise that this might over-commitment from a WG with a
>     specified lifespan but if maintaining currency is a principle then
>     the two sponsor organisations may be encouraged to reconvene WGs
>     to review and update the Best Practices periodically.
>
>     Cheers,
>     *--
>     John Machin*
>
>     <graycol.gif>Andreas Harth ---18/04/2015 05:57:59 AM---Hi Ed, On
>     2015-04-16 14:10, Ed Parsons wrote:
>
>     From: Andreas Harth <harth@kit.edu <mailto:harth@kit.edu>>
>     To: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>,
>     Date: 18/04/2015 05:57 AM
>     Subject: Re: Princples...
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>     Hi Ed,
>
>     On 2015-04-16 14:10, Ed Parsons wrote:
>     > So to start the ball rolling....
>     >
>     > Princple No.1 : The linkabilty of Geospatial Information published on
>     > the web should be improved.
>     >
>     [...]
>     >
>     > Princple No.2 : We will not reinvent
>     >
>     [...]
>     >
>     > Feel free to add to these, develop more ... when we reach a level of
>     > agreement I will transfer them over to the wiki
>
>     How about the following?
>
>     Principle No.3 : Best Practices have to be visible.
>
>     We will link to at least one (or two, three?) publicly available
>     example(s) of a non-toy dataset that follows the best practice.
>
>     Cheers,
>     Andreas.
>


-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net