metadata, sure. it is a must. BUT good and thought for the web of data. not designed for paper based collections. From my experience it is not so much about representing everything from the paper as triplets. there will be statements that won't be representable, also, such approach may not be efficient. why don't we just go a little bit further up from the lowest hanging fruit and start talking about self describing documents? well annotated documents with well structured metadata that are interoperable. this is easy, achievable, requires little tooling, does not put any burden on the author, delivers interoperability beyond just simple hyperlinks, it is much more elegant than adhering to HTML, etc. On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org> wrote: > > > On 5 Oct 2014, at 11:07, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de> wrote: > > > ... > > Basic metadata is good. Publishing datasets with the paper is good. > Having > > typed links in the paper is good. But I would not demand to go further. > > > +1 > ++1 - the dataset publishing can include the workflow, tools etc, and > metadata about that. > > > -- > Hugh Glaser > 20 Portchester Rise > Eastleigh > SO50 4QS > Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155, Home: +44 23 8061 5652 > > > > -- Alexander Garcia http://www.alexandergarcia.name/ http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.html http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciac
Received on Sunday, 5 October 2014 14:58:05 UTC