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

A couple of cents of thoughts.

I recognise I'm something of a purist.
I have always been of the opinion that if the URIs aren't http(s), and don't resolve, it ain't Linked Data.
And the way to get any Linked Data is by resolving URIs.
(SPARQL has a weird relationship with this, and is uncomfortable, but I sort of let it be included, if the content has the right URIs.)

But I now accept (albeit grudgingly) that the world has changed.
Linked Data has become a much more fuzzy term, and is often seen as pretty much the/a realisation of the RDF world.
Open complicates things further, of course.
The Semantic Web, which hasn't been mentioned, even though the thread is on this list, and not on the LOD list, for example, always seemed like it was a realisation of the RDF world, where we don't care if URIs resolve.
But from the W3C standpoint, it is an activity label now, which embraces another activity, Linked Data (https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data )

When Dan started this, I went off trying to find the chapter and verse on what these terms mean now, using w3.org as the source.
It isn't easy. There aren't really clear description; I don't know if that is W3C causing that, or reflecting reality.

In practice, when I talk to customers now, I use whichever of the terms I think they will get the closest meaning of my intended meaning.
For a public document, that doesn't work.

I think that the concerns about different terms putting some groups off is well-founded.
But without reliable surveys of who those readers might be, personal experience is not the best way to do it.
Trying to make the title the most accurate description is surely the best thing.

That leads us away from Linked Data - it isn't about links at all, really - in fact the links are a real problem.
If it was signatures of RDF documents that are retrieved, that might make more sense - but it isn't.
The document currently talks a lot about RDF Datasets (in the Mission, and four times in the Scope).
The Use Cases are all about (RDF) Datasets.

So why isn't it called "RDF Dataset Signatures WG"?
(I confess that my first reading of "Linked Data Signatures" was to assume it was about vCard Linked Data equivalents, but I guess I'm just stupid.)
It is all about Dataset signatures, and they happen to be RDF, even.

So route 66 it is, but say what we all know, but a casual reader won't - that it is about Datasets.

I had quite a bit of time, but still didn't manage a shorter post -sorry :-)

-- 
Hugh
023 8061 5652

Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2021 14:51:34 UTC