Antoine,
Thanks for this.
Yes, the W3C list does seem to be a good place. I will look at this further
and get back to you. Thanks for pointing these resources out.
Cheers,
Dominic
________________________________
From: Antoine Isaac <ais...@few.vu.nl>
To: public-lod@w3.org
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 17:49
Subject: Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical
End User Applications
On 6/24/13 4:22 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/24/13 9:12 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>> On 6/24/13 2:44 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> On 6/24/13 6:23 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>>> Hi Dominic,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with the relevance of the effort, and wouldn't argue against
>>>> centralizing. Not everyone will have the resource to search in a
>>>> decentralized fashion...
>>>>
>>>> What worries me a bit is how to learn lessons for the past. As you (or
>>>> someone else) has pointed, there have been previous attempts in the past.
>>>> For example http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/
>>>> I don't find the cases there super-technical. And is it really from the
>>>> past?
>>>> Looking closer, it seems still open for contribution:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/submit.html
>>>> Actually I have submitted a case there way after the SWEO group was closed:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/Europeana/
>>>>
>>>> Now why do these things seem obsolete to newcomers?
>>>> Just giving some account on what I've been involved in ...
>>>>
>>>> [Note: I'm sorry if sometimes it's going to read a bit as a rant. It's not
>>>> intended, just trying honestly to reflect the situation ;-) It's also not
>>>> purely about your case/requirement situation, but I believe the issues are
>>>> very similar!]
>>>>
>>>> [Perspective from the case providers]
>>>> It's hard to know where to contribute. Existing don't often come in the
>>>> places where case owners are, or it's hard to tell whether they're still
>>>> open. And there's always a fresher initiative (like the one you're trying
>>>> to launch) which seems a good place.
>>>> In fact I have actually created some updated description of the Europeana
>>>> case
>>>> http://lodlam.net/2013/06/18/what-is-europeana-doing-with-sw-and-lod/
>>>> But because the LODLAM summit was a more actual forum for me recently,
>>>> I've posted it there. And failed thinking of updating the SWEO list, mea
>>>> maxima culpa.
>>>>
>>>> [Perspective from the case gatherers] I have actually be involved as
>>>> 'initiator' of a couple of listing.
>>>> 1. SKOS datasets (which are a kind of 'case for SKOS')
>>>> We started with a web page:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/data
>>>> but as the list was difficult to maintain we soon created a
>>>> community-writable wiki:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SKOS/Datasets
>>>> As it seemed not modern enough, we've then encouraged people to use the
>>>> same DataHub platform as the LOD cloud:
>>>> http://datahub.io/dataset?q=format-skos
>>>> But both are not very active. And they contain a lot of dead links...
>>>> 2. Library-related datasets:
>>>> http://datahub.io/dataset?groups=lld
>>>> That list, started by the Library Linked Data W3C incubator, went alright
>>>> as long as the group was running. Now I think the rate of new datasets is
>>>> really small, even though I *know* there are many new ones.
>>>>
>>>> Both as SKOS community manager and former LLD co-chair, I've tried to
>>>> actively mail people to create descriptions of their stuff. But it
>>>> requires time. Most often they assume *you* would do it!
>>>> And after a while, the supporters of such effort just have other things to
>>>> do and can't afford very high level of commitment.
>>>>
>>>> What should we do if we want to build on existing lists and not re-invent
>>>> the wheel every six months or so?
>>>> Or is it worth sending a regular (monthly?) reminder to lists like
>>>> public-lod, reminding everyone that these lists are available and open for
>>>> contributions?
>>>> Create a list of lists, as Wikipedia does?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Antoine
>>>
>>> Antoine,
>>>
>>> As you've indicated, there have been many attempts at this over the years
>>> and they never take-off or meet their goals etc.. The problem is that a
>>> different approach is required. Basically, in this scenario lies a simple
>>> Linked Data publication usecase i.e., a problem that Linked Data addresses.
>>>
>>> The steps:
>>>
>>> 1. use a Linked Data document to describe you product, service, platform,
>>> usecase
>>> 2. publish the document
>>> 3. make people aware of the document.
>>>
>>> Crawlers will find your document. The content of the document will show up
>>> in search results.
>>>
>>> The trouble is that confusion around Linked Data makes 1-3 harder than it
>>> needs to be. Then add RDF misconceptions to the mix, and it gets harder
>>> e.g., that you must have generally approved vocabulary before you get
>>> going, when in fact you don't.
>>>
>>> People need to understand that "scribbling" is a natural Web pattern i.e.,
>>> rough cuts are okay since improvements will be continuous.
>>>
>>
>> Kingsley
>>
>> Two practical objection to this otherwise interesting approach.
>>
>> 1. For that kind of survey, as for the rest, people want trust. it will have
>> to be curated (I mean, besides people just putting little bits of
>> uncontrolled/outdated data out there), or it will fly only when thee
>> distributed descriptions are harvested and accessible through something like
>> Google/schema.org.
>> Btw people also want visibility. You don't say anything about step 3...
>
> You can sign documents. You can even sign claims. Even better, claims can be
> endorsed by others. These a issues naturally handled by Linked Data.
>
> Verifiable Identity and Trust are areas where Linked Data shines.
>
>>
>> 2. It needs to be simple, as non-technical as possible. Step 1 is already
>> too much. Consider LD consumers, who don't publish any LD, why would you ask
>> them to publish an LD document?
>
> "simple" is subjective. There are many routes to the same destination here.
> For instance, some will happily craft Turtle by hand, others may do so using
> other concrete syntaxes. Of course, some would prefer an HTML5 form based
> interface too. The key is to be dexterous enough to handle profile variety.
>
>
>> Actually even in organization that publish LD having step 2 and 3 will take
>> some effort. Not much, I agree, but it won't be part of the core business,
>> and it will still need effort.
>> Consider the need to have an (i) updated version; an (ii) interoperable.
>
> It can be done, the problem has been that the approaches to date don't work
> and will never work. Thus, we need to try something different, one that's
> also a Linked Data dog-food exercise too.
>
>>
>> Taking a concrete example: me (again, sorry!). A while ago I've made a
>> description of data.europeana.eu as a voiD file. Nice, but now I hear that
>> there's DCAT around and I should read the doc and update my file. Oh, and my
>> dataset has been also updated.
>
> There are even notification protocols that mesh nicely with Linked Data. Our
> problem is that there is too much fragmentation. Suggestions to tackle these
> issues via dog-food and "just do it!" patterns ultimately get lost is bizarre
> arguments rife with contradiction. If Linked Data is what is claims to be,
> then we can address these issues (collaboratively) via dog-food patterns.
>
>> And I've got no idea who will consume this updated file and whether it will
>> happen one day...
>
> The same thing applies to any content you put on the Web, you ultimately need
> an incentive to keep it up to date. The same thing applies to consumers too,
> they need an incentive to want to track etc..
>
>> And I've got a hell of other more urgent things to do. So anything that
>> won't be populated by a trivial adaptation of the blog post, which I've
>> already written, will have to wait for a while.
>
> Tweets and posts to other social media are effective mechanisms for
> discussion about data that aid discovery and curation. They can also be
> powerful incentive vectors.
>
> Links:
>
> 1. http://slidesha.re/Ys79Jn -- ontology life cycle presentation I gave to
> some ontologies earlier on this year (note: the presentation includes live
> links too).
>
Hi Kingsley,
I'm sorry but all these leaves me with my practical issues on how to do it.
Your three points indeed hide a forest of technical / organizational questions.
http://dir.w3.org/ at least tells me how I should start. But of course in order
to fly it would need to be adapted, as Dave suggests, and supported by the
community!
Antoine
