Re: Chartering work has started for a Linked Data Signature Working Group @W3C

Apologies for interjecting when I've not been following developments very
well for a long time.

But I do believe that gives me a small advantage in seeing patterns that
might not be so obvious to folks working on things on a daily basis.

Very similar crap to many years ago. But clearly it's something that people
care about, which is reassuring.

RDF, in my humble opinion, is probably close to optimal for a model with
which to work Web material.

RDF as a brand fell at a hurdle early in Web time. Cf. Dave Winer and RSS
2.0, Tantek & co. and microformats. Aside, strong personality seems
significant in this arena, stronger than a multinational consortium.
Bookmark here*.

'Linked Data', still has legs I reckon, but only done carefully.
When I say carefully, I mean 'not at all'. A link is a link. Any link on
the web is de facto linked data. That, (Greek to Latin?) is axiomatic,
surely.

Semantic Web - probably the idea that got me most interested, but after one
print magazine article just evaporated into academia. No dis intended, very
good work, but reflects a different world.

I'll repeat - I think it's a very good model, close to the sweet spot.

Unfortunately it looks like the W3C, guiding light in all this, seems to
have fallen into being a Confederacy of Genuises. Get fuck-all done, argue
the toss amongst themselves. The real world just gets on with
completely different things. Olympian, pretty sure Greek.

FFS, *if*, as I believe to be true, there is benefit to be gained for
developers, end users, humanity, from this view of these constructs, it
shouldn't be hard to fold the model back over existing things.

The Google, schema.org stuff - it works as an overlay over documents on the
Web as RDF. Guha, danbri, bloody hell, same model. It also exists through
all the other SEO metadata from pretty much everywhere - ok, still
doc-focused, the data generalization singularity hasn't happened. But
developments have been widespread, if not very deep.

Now, more personal -

What you should bloody well be looking at is mobile device use.

Dunno, 15? years ago I did a talk in front of *this* group in Cannes, where
I was vehemently arguing that working through the browser was a bad idea.
Plenty of space for completely different things that communicate over HTTP,
using Web links/RDF model. Think more in terms of more user-focused apps,
using HTTP behind the scenes. Be careful what you wish for, wrong, wrong,
wrong. Apps. Oops.

My 2 cents.

Cheers,
Danny.























On Mon, 3 May 2021 at 21:34, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:

> -.5 to 65; kinda weird to say "in this scope we're calling X Y" without
> implying a broader and more controversial change.
> +1 to 66; evaporates a lot of pixie dust and makes the deliverable dead
> clear.
>
> In the interest of marketing, I'd be OK with a Linked Data title and
> changing the 1st sentence in the scope back to "The deployment of Linked
> Data is increasing at a rapid pace ." I think that motivates the work while
> leaving no question about what will be done.
>
> (I'd have proposed this in GitHub but thought it better to let 66 go
> through unmolested and get to molesting it after it's resolved.)
>
>
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:30:02AM -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > Just saying that A is used as a synonym of B doesn't make using A when B
> is
> > what is really meant innocuous.  Even worse, the statement, although it
> > actually doesn't say that A and B are the same, can far too easily be
> taken
> > as a statement that A and B are the same.
> >
> > So I view the "minimal" change in PR 65 as actually quite a dramatic
> change,
> > with high potential negative consequences. Instead I get my kicks on PR
> 66
> > and prefer to follow it more than two years all the way from draft to
> rec.
> >
> > peter
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/3/21 10:39 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> > > Dan,
> > >
> > > Trying to move things ahead I have created two different pull requests:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/65
> > > <https://github.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/65> with
> > > Preview
> > > <https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/65.html>:
> > > https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/65.html
> > > <https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/65.html>
> > > Diff:
> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/65/7ace91f...38507c3.html
> <
> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/65/7ace91f...38507c3.html
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://github.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/66
> > > <https://github.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/66> with
> > > Preview:
> > > https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/66.html
> > > <https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/66.html>
> > > Diff:
> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/66/7ace91f...e306629.html
> <
> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/66/7ace91f...e306629.html
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The first is a minimal change: it just adds a sentence on the LD/RDF
> > > equivalence (plus incorporates a separate proposal by Andy to rename
> one
> > > of the deliverables). The second is a maximal change in that in uses
> the
> > > term RDF uniformly everywhere (including the name of the WG).
> > >
> > > At this point I am not sure which of the two changes are better, in
> view
> > > of we said about the problem with the term "Linked Data". I expect
> that,
> > > apart from the exact wording, the first version is not controversial; I
> > > do expect some problems with the second version, in view of the
> > > differences among communities. But I want to get the discussions to
> > > continue on concrete versions rather than generalities.
> > >
> > > However, Dan, I also tried to find the quotes you criticized, like
> > >
> > > > ...W3C isn’t helping itself with the “this secures the authenticity
> > > and integrity of the web of linked data” hype.
> > > > ...secure the integrity and authenticity of the fast growing web of
> linked data
> > >
> > > and I did not find those (I would agree that, if they were there, we
> > > would need to reduce hype). Either I really have to get my glasses
> > > changed or we are not looking at the same document…
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Ivan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

-- 
----

http://hyperdata.it <http://hyperdata.it/danja>