- From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:46:45 +0200
- To: Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "Kerry.Taylor@acm.org" <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>, "jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com" <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, "frans.knibbe@geodan.nl" <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk> wrote: > when users come along and get told to ‘use something convenient here’ or > ‘use whatever you like’, they understandably get frustrated. So the > challenge for SDWWG – particularly in the Best Practices space – is the > extent to which we want to tie down or fill in some of the stubs. > > > Agreed, I think this is absolutely key. The Linked Data idea of “small > pieces loosely coupled” is all very well, but at the moment (from the user > point of view) it seems like “small pieces widely scattered”. > > If we can agree on the “best” (or at least good-quality) vocabularies and > ontologies to adopt for specific purposes it would be a big step forward. +1. This is indeed what our BPs should do. Andrea
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2015 11:47:30 UTC