W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > July 2013

RE: Linked Data Glossary is published!

From: Michael Miller <Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 08:23:52 -0700
Message-ID: <2191a5e2277482b2e897f1a770d1f702@mail.gmail.com>
To: KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>, John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Cc: Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>, W3C public GLD WG WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, egov-ig mailing list <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
hi all,

XML takes on many levels of machine readability.  i would argue that if XML
came with an DTD/XML schema it is at least 3 star and possibly 4 star.
that at least was my experience with MAGE- ML (i'd say 3 star) and the
clinical XML for the TCGA project (4 star)



Michael Miller

Software Engineer

Institute for Systems Biology

*From:* KANZAKI Masahide [mailto:mkanzaki@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, July 01, 2013 7:19 PM
*To:* John Erickson
*Cc:* Bernadette Hyland; W3C public GLD WG WG; Linked Data community;
egov-ig mailing list; HCLS
*Subject:* Re: Linked Data Glossary is published!

Hello John, thanks for reply, very much appreciated.

2013/7/2 John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>

Thus, I think we should distinguish between "plain old XML" and Office
Open XML/OOXML/OpenXML; based on my understanding and what I read <>
OpenXML could be listed as an example three-star format.

Well, that's true. I hope this distinction will be incorporated into this
glossary, rather simply showing "XML" as 2-stars example (which is
misleading not only for me, but also for others around me).

* I think the POINT is that the data should be published in a way

suited for machine consumption. A format should NOT be considered
"machine readable" simply because someone cooked up a hack on
Scraperwiki for getting the data out of an otherwise opaque data dump
on a site

Yes, it is desirable that data is published for machine "consumption" in
Linked Data space, though my point was that the term "Machine Readable" is
too general to be redefined for LD perspective.

* The argument against having a separate term is simply that
(arguably) the common case for publishing "machine readable" data *is*
structured data, and adding the a special "structured" category merely
confuses adopters.
* The argument for a new term is, if the reason we want "machine
readable data" is because we expect (and usually get) structured data,
then we should specify that what we REALLY want is "machine readable
structured data..." (and explain what that means)

Well, "machine readable" data is *not necessarily* structured in general,
so the second argument seems more reasonable, although I'm not arguing to
add separate term, rather, thinking it is not good idea to redefine term
"machine readable" just for a specific community.

Thank you very much for the discussion.


@prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig# <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig>>
. <> :from [:name
"KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "mkanzaki@gmail.com"].
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 15:24:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:21:34 UTC