Re: Content negotiation for Turtle files
Hi all While I promised a response, time is never my friend despite best intentions. +1 to Tim on crispness, and on a protocol. I note that the content-negotiation error which was at the core of this discussion hasn't really been talked about, and was where I was planning to provide comment on. So noting the latest in the discussion, I'll fast track and suggest that as an interim measure: (note - this is a drive by comment, and possibly at the risk of over-simplifying:) Cannot a lot of this discussion be solved if a server is correctly configured to return a 300 response in these cases? (Multiple-choice or there is more than one format available Mr. Client - please choose which one you'd like). We can't assume that clients or users will ask for something we have, or in a correct manner, which is the reason 300 and other responses not-often used exist. Cheers Chris I feel we should be crisp about these things. Its not a question of thinking of what things kind of tend to enhance interoperability, it is defining a protocol which 100% guarantees interoperability. Here are three distinct protocols which work, ie guarantee each client can understand each server. A) Client accepts various formats including RDF/XML. Server provides various formats including RDF/XML. B) Client accepts various formats including RDF/XML AND turtle. Server provides various formats including either RDF/XML OR turtle. C) Client accepts various formats including turtle. Server provides various formats including turtle. These may not ever have been named. The RDF world used A in fact for a while, but the Linked Data Platform at last count was using C. Obviously B has its own advantages but I think that we need lightweight clients more than we need lightweight servers and so being able to build a client without an XML parser is valuable. Obviously there is a conservative middle ground D in which all clients and servers support both formats, which could be defined as a practical best practice, but we should have a name for, say, C. We should see whether the LDP group will define a word for compliance with C. I hope so, and then we can all provide that and test for it. Tim On 2013-02 -06, at 11:38, Leigh Dodds wrote: From an interoperability point of view, having a default format that clients can rely on is reasonable. Until now, RDF/XML has been the standardised format that we can all rely on, although shortly we may all collectively decide to prefer Turtle. So ensuring that RDF/XML is available seems like a reasonable thing for a validator to try and test for. But there's several ways that test could have been carried out. E.g. Vapour could have checked that there was a RDF/XML version and provided you with some reasons why that would be useful. Perhaps as a warning, rather than a fail. The explicit check for RDF/XML being available AND being the default preference of the server is raising the bar slightly, but its still trying to aim for interop. Personally I think I'd implement this kind of check as ensure there is at least one valid RDF serialisation available, either RDF/XML or Turtle. I wouldn't force a default on a server, particularly as we know that many clients can consume multiple formats. This is where automated validation tools have to tread carefully: while they play an excellent role in encouraging consistently, the tests they perform and the feedback they give need to have some nuance.
Re: Content negotiation for Turtle files
Bernard, Ivan (At last! Something I can speak semi-authoritatively on ;P ) @ Bernard - no - there is no reason to go back if you do not want to, and every reason to serve both formats plus more. Your comment about UA's complaining about a content negotiation issue is key to what you're trying to do here. I'd like to provide some clear guidance or suggestions back, but first, if possible, can you please post the http request headers for the four (and any others you have) user agents you've used to attempt to request your rdf+xml files and which have either choked or accepted the .ttl file. Extra points if you can also post the server's response headers. @ Ivan - while I wince a little at the trick - the question comes down to the same thing - what is the http response header that is sent back to the client - would be interested to see if in fact what you're doing ISN'T a trick but in fact a compliant way to approach this. Personally I think you shouldn't actually need to resort to using .var (which is Apache specific) when what is essentially a content negotiation issue can simply be configured properly at the server level and thus a single approach could be used by IIS, Apache, nginx etc. Look forward to the responses (excuse the pun) Cheers Chris -- Chris Beer Manager - Online Services Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport Bernard, (forget my W3C hat, I am not authoritative on Apache tricks, for example...) When I put up a vocabulary onto www.w3.org/ns/, for example, I publish it both in ttl and rdf/xml. Actually, we also publish the file in HTML+RDFa (which very often is the master copy and I convert it into ttl and rdf/xml before publishing). Additionally, we put there a .var file. This is the .var file for the http://www.w3.org/ns/r2rml: r2rml.var - URI: r2rml URI: r2rml.html Content-Type: text/html URI: r2rml.rdf Content-Type: application/rdf+xml; qs=0.4 URI: r2rml.ttl Content-Type: text/turtle; qs=0.5 that seems to work well, at least I have not heard complaints:-) One can do a further trick by adding to .htaccess entries to convert, say, r2rml.html to r2rml.ttl on the fly; I did not do that to reduce the load on our servers. There is somewhere a flag in the apache configuration allowing apache to handle these .var files; I am not sure it is there by default. I hope this helps Ivan On Feb 6, 2013, at 24:49 , Bernard Vatant bernard.vat...@mondeca.com wrote: Hello all Back in 2006, I thought had understood with the help of folks around here, how to configure my server for content negotiation at lingvoj.org. Both vocabulary and instances were published in RDF/XML. I updated the ontology last week, and since after years of happy living with RDF/XML people eventually convinced that it was a bad, prehistoric and ugly syntax, I decided to be trendy and published the new version in Turtle at http://www.lingvoj.org/ontology_v2.0.ttl The vocabulary URI is still the same : http://www.lingvoj.org/ontology, and the namespace http://www.lingvoj.org/ontology# (cool URI don't change) Then I turned to Vapour to test this new publication, and found out that to be happy with the vocabulary URI it has to find some answer when requesting application/rdf+xml. But since I have no more RDF/XML file for this version, what should I do? I turned to best practices document at http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub, but it does not provide examples with Turtle, only RDF/XML. So I blindly put the following in the .htaccess : AddType application/rdf+xml .ttl I found it a completely stupid and dirty trick ... but amazigly it makes Vapour happy. But now Firefox chokes on http://www.lingvoj.org/ontology_v2.0.ttl because it seems to expect a XML file. Chrome has not this issue. The LOV-Bot says there is a content negotiation issue and can't get the file. So does Parrot. I feel dumb, but I'm certainly not the only one, I've stumbled upon a certain number of vocabularies published in Turtle for which the conneg does not seem to be perfectly clear either. What do I miss, folks? Should I forget about it, and switch back to good ol' RDF/XML? Bernard -- Bernard Vatant Vocabularies Data Engineering Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59 Skype : bernard.vatant Blog : the wheel and the hub Mondeca 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France www.mondeca.com Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews -- Meet us at Documation in Paris, March 20-21 Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Re: Linked Data Book in Early Access Release
snip http://www.manning.com/dwood/ itself doesn't seam to have any Linked Data to consume ;) Makes sense to me - if you know enough to look for LD resources at the manning.com/dwood/ URI, you've just self evaluated that you probably don't need the book! :P (Although reminds me of the classic newspaper ad - Can't read? Call this number and we'll tell you about learning to read courses...) - Chris
Re: CC Version 4.0 (and government data)
Hi all Very much agreed - it's somewhat of an honour to have been publically corrected by a true expert in the field :) You'll also be hapy to know Anne, that I've since firmly entered the AusGOAL (ausgoal.gov.au for those reading) fold and have been working with Baden et. al. on the CC 4.0 implications for data in the Australian context. Cheers Chris Sent from Samsung MobileBernadette Hyland bhyl...@3roundstones.com wrote:Hi Anne, As always, you are thorough! Thank you for the detail on CC licenses for use by governments. It is a topic that requires expertise that few can provide and therefore it only makes sense to leverage the excellent work you all have done. The URLs and some description, with proper attribution of course, will be folded in the the Gov Linked Data Working Group's forthcoming Best Practices deliverable. Thanks again and I'm so glad you are part of this effort. Cheers, Bernadette Hyland, co-chair W3C Government Linked Data Working Group Charter: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/ On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Anne Fitzgerald wrote: Hi all I thought it might be useful to post some clarifications on the points raised by Chris Beer in comments posted on 12 December 2011. (1)The version 3.0 CC Australia licences ARE suitable for use on copyright-protected datasets, data compilations and databases. If the dataset is not copyright-protected, the CC licences (which are based on the rights held by copyright owners) are unsuitable. While copyright does not apply to mere facts or unoriginal data collections, there are many datasets, data compilations and databases that will qualify for copyright under the tests set out by the Australian courts in cases decided in 2010 and 2011. A summary of the position is contained in my chapter (“Copyright”) in the recently-published book “Australian Media Law” 4th ed, Thomson Reuters, November 2011 or in our Guide “CC and Government” – available here:http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38364/ (2)CC licences are in fact being widely used on datasets and data collections by government agencies and educational and research institutions around Australia, ranging from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (www.abs.gov.au) and Geoscience Australia (www.ga.gov.au) at the federal government level, through to the Queensland Police Service (http://www.police.qld.gov.au/copyright.htm) and Brisbane City Council (http://data.brisbane.qld.gov.au/). The most widely used licence for data is CC BY. (Please note that CC 0 is not used in Australia as it is not legally effective; all these government agencies are using CC BY as the default.) (3)Based on wide-ranging consultations and feedback over the last several years, there is little interest in other, more complex licences such as ODbL. Reasons for this are that Australia does not recognise sui generis database rights and there is no discernible advocacy in favour of extending statutory database rights to factual data collections that are not sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection. In the absence of a statutory database right, protection of non-copyright data collections would require parties to enter into a contractual arrangement to firstly, describe their respective rights and obligations and, secondly, to set out the consequences of breach of those obligations. (4)The Australian legal position with respect to copyright in datasets, data compilations and databases is appropriately dealt with in the CC version 3.0 Australia licences. The revisions in version 4.0 are primarily directed at addressing the situation in Europe (and a few other countries, such as Korea) which recognise sui generis database rights; version 3.0 is based on copyright interests but does not deal with the licensing of database rights that may exist in the same material to which the CC licence is applied. (5) There has been little interest in Australia in the development of licences based on rights (such as sui generis database rights) that do not exist under Australian law. As the Creative Commons licences (up to and including version 3.0) have been “ported” so they are effective under the laws existing in individual jurisdictions (countries) where the licence is applied, unless and until a truly “international” licence is developed it is inappropriate to include mention – and even more inappropriate to purport to grant a licence - of rights that are not recognised at all under that country’s laws. In countries which do recognise sui generis database rights there has, of course, been extensive consideration of the rights and their operation has been examined in several important cases in the UK and Europe in recent years. (6)There is now considerable experience with using CC licences in the Australian public sector as well as in education and publicly funded research. This is also increasingly the case worldwide as national and local authorities develop data.gov
Fwd: Re: CC Version 4.0 (and government data)
...And this time to the list and not just Sandro... Sent from Samsung Mobile Original message Subject: Re: CC Version 4.0 (and government data) From: Chris Beer ch...@codex.net.au To: san...@w3.org CC: Thanks Sandro This is of immediate interest here in Australia where at a very recent (last week) federal level meeting concerning a WoG licencing framework I raised with general acknowledgement from others that CC 3.0 was unsuitable for data, and that CC proscribed as much. My suggestion then was that the ODbL should be actively considered as the suitable 3rd critical part of an open licence triumvirate formed by CC for objects, GPL/BSD for software, and ODbL for object containers, noting for instance the most common scenario wherein the displayed results on a query is considered a derivative work where database or dataset is CC licenced. This new development CC 4.0 does appear to change things. My questions to the list are a) how much has been invested by Gov / Academia / Orgs anywhere or at any level in ODbL b) how much has been invested by Gov / Academia / Orgs anywhere or at any level in CC with datasets, databases or datacubes and has suitability been an issue and c) to anyone's knowledge, has CC = 3.0 on data, datasets/bases/cubes been tested in court in a real copyright/left case (pref with Gov as plaintiff) Cheers Chris Beer Australia Sent from Samsung Mobile
Re: New Open Government Platform code released
Hi Jeanne a) Is there a dedicated group, list or contact for the dev cycle? (alpha, beta, RC, rel). Feel free to send details direct and I'll talk off list with a view to getting the .gov.au Drupal/open data community into the loop as an ongoing exercise. b) erewhon.gov (I originally called it example.gov or something) was always a nice idea. But it is probably far easier for every gov to make use of handles/PIDs, RDF, standard domains etc to make a example.any.data.gov(.*) which acts as a community cloud with localisation. Anyway, while off topic a little, it would seem there exists a strong business case for an agreement to exist between W3, ICANN, IETF, the UN and associated groups such as ISO, OGC, EU, G20 etc, to establish a gTLD along the lines of .* (obviously it would need to be something other than the actual wildcard character for DNS reasons). This would allow for a variety of test beds and sandboxes to be used in cross org/state developments such as a true 'data.gov.*' for instance, or 'alpha.semweb.*', or even health.gov.* etc. (It also seems logical in a SemWeb and e-gov sense - simple triple lists etc of all relevant sites/services in an internationally accepted domain - eg hospital.gov.* should just redirect you to the closest Government's hospital and health directory, space.gov.* should take you to the closest space agency website etc.) Pie in the sky maybe, but certainly there appears to be a need. And the timing is right with new gTLD applications being taken as of Jan. 2012. As it would be a high level agreement, it could be done at little to no cost as it is in the public interest (as opposed to the $185k being charged to business). (example.data.gov for our needs here would always have been ideal, bar for the defacto position which saw the US take over .gov rather than using .gov.us as they really should under the standard.) Interested in what others think. Is this something all of our standards communities/UN/international orgs should be looking to implement? If so, how do we propose/drive it, and what would be the next step? We are prob a little to far down the chain to really influence such a thing, but... Cheers Chris Beer Australian .gov.au IT type (with all opinions my own of course) Sent from Samsung Mobile Holm, Jeanne M (1760) jeanne.m.h...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Thanks for the feedback Gannon. I really appreciate it. As you know, this kind of feedback is critical to us being able to iterate with you and the broad community on getting this from Alpha to Beta. We've gotten some other feedback as well and are working on many some fixes. I'll check out erewhon.gov… Thanks! --Jeanne ** Jeanne Holm Evangelist, Data.gov U.S. General Services Administration Cell: (818) 434-5037 Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn: JeanneHolm ** From: Gannon Dick gannon_d...@yahoo.com Reply-To: Gannon Dick gannon_d...@yahoo.com Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:09:24 -0800 To: ch...@codex.net.au ch...@codex.net.au, Jeanne Holm jeanne.m.h...@jpl.nasa.gov Subject: Re: New Open Government Platform code released After 20hrs. I succeeded in getting a minimum Drupal-7.10 installation working on the loop-back of an old laptop. I started from scratch, as it were, installing Linux (desktop), then Apache, etc.. Nonetheless, little boy named Ed S. is getting coal in his stocking. I'm still not sure what the symlink to the 'dgib_dms' directory is all about. I think that directory is created on installation. How did you come out Chris ? If I could make a suggestion Jeanne ... a test deployment, refreshed overnight would be real handy. May I suggest www.erewhon.gov, and you should list it as a deployment in the Community Directory as well. --Gannon From: Chris Beer ch...@codex.net.au To: Holm, Jeanne M (1760) jeanne.m.h...@jpl.nasa.gov Cc: public-egov...@w3.org public-egov...@w3.org Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 12:58 AM Subject: Re: New Open Government Platform code released OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!!! Something something Dark Side... something something something Data Management and Repository Software Requirements complete... Thankyou for letting us know! I know what I'm installing tonight... Cheers Chris
4th Australian Metadata Conference - 2011 - Call for Presentations and Case Studies
website Speaker reimbursement . The conference is being run on a cost recovery basis to keep costs as low as possible for delegates . Presenters will be required to register for the conference but the registration fee will be waived . There may be some possibility to reimburse travel and accommodation costs for presenters outside of the ACT (within Australia only). For further information on this please contact i...@metalounge.org mailto:i...@metalounge.org Sponsorships . Limited sponsorship opportunities are available for this event. Further details are available here or contact us at i...@metalounge.org mailto:i...@metalounge.org Critical Timeline . Deadline for proposals: 19th March, 2011 . Notification of acceptance: 2nd April, 2011 . Deadline for final abstracts and bios: 29th April, 2011 . Deadline for final presentation slides and related documents: 13th May, 2011 . Conference: Wednesday 25th - Friday 27th May, 2011 Institute of Metadata Management Committee . Lisa Baldwin, Fuji Xerox Australia . Oliver Bell, Microsoft Australia . Michele Berkhout, Digital Brand (links to online profiles) . David Bromage, National Archives of Australia . Karen Dexter, Department of Defence . Terry Hanisch, Department of Finance and Deregulations . Anni Rowland-Campbell, Digital Brand . Mel Taylor, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Services . Simon Wall, Australian Bureau of Statistics . Chris Beer, National Occupational Licensing Authority The conference is being organised by Digital Brand Pty Ltd on behalf of the Institute of Metadata Management. -- /*Chris Beer* Invited Expert (Public Member) W3 eGovernment Interest Group W3-WAI WCAG Working Group EM: ch...@e-beer.net.au mailto:ch...@e-beer.net.au TW: @zBeer http://www.twitter.com/zBeer LI: http://au.linkedin.com/in/zbeer/
Re: Organization ontology
Good point! Sent from my iPhone On 02/06/2010, at 15:06, Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html I think this is great, but I'm a little worried that a number of Western (and specifically Westminister) assumptions may have been built into it. What would be great would be to see a handful of different organisations (or portions of them) from different traditions modelled. Maybe: * The tripartite system at the top of US government, which seems pretty complex to me, with former Presidents apparently retaining some control after they leave office * The governance model of the Vatican City and Catholic Church * The Asian royalty model, in which an informal royalty commonly appears to sit above a formal constitution cheers stuart
Re: Organization ontology
Cool! Let me know when that's ready. End of the week ok? ;P lol Sent from my iPhone On 02/06/2010, at 15:47, Mike Norton xsideofparad...@yahoo.com wrote: Or, in the U.S. we could just partition a new web with top level domains reflective of the agencies and departments financed by our tax dollars. Open Gov! Michael A. Norton From: Chris Beer ch...@e-beer.net.au To: Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com Cc: Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org; public-egov...@w3.org public-egov...@w3.org Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 10:22:12 PM Subject: Re: Organization ontology Good point! Sent from my iPhone On 02/06/2010, at 15:06, Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html I think this is great, but I'm a little worried that a number of Western (and specifically Westminister) assumptions may have been built into it. What would be great would be to see a handful of different organisations (or portions of them) from different traditions modelled. Maybe: * The tripartite system at the top of US government, which seems pretty complex to me, with former Presidents apparently retaining some control after they leave office * The governance model of the Vatican City and Catholic Church * The Asian royalty model, in which an informal royalty commonly appears to sit above a formal constitution cheers stuart
Re: [agenda] eGov IG Call, 25 Nov 2009, item 6
Thanks for the reply Kingsley. /Kingsley Idehen wrote:/ /Chris Beer wrote: / /I think Thomas makes some excellent points. Is it possible as a group to agree on something akin to the following? 1) Open Data refers to how data is accessed and is primarily a political/policy consideration / /Structured Data based on industry standard data representation formats. Just as UNIX came down to POSIX. Ditto Internet re. TCP/IP. Openness is about Standards, and has nothing to do with politics or philosophy. You can institute policies that mandate the use of industry standard data formats re. data placed in the public domain or simply published for reuse by others. / /2) Linked (Open) Data refers to how data is structured and delivered and is primarily a technological/standards consideration / /To be precise: HTTP based Linked Open Data. This is about the incorporation of HTTP scheme Identifiers into data that has be published using a standard data representation format. Note: to get data into any standard data representation format there has to be a formal data model. At the most basic, said model takes the form: Entity-Attribute-Value. In the case of Linked Open Data, you have the intersection of the following: 1. EAV model 2. Standard Data Formats 3. HTTP scheme Identifiers (HTTP URIs)./ What I was in fact suggesting here is that we clearly define the difference between Data being Open as in access and policy surrounding it - the political/philosophical side of the coin, and Data being Open as in Standards and, as you so better put it - structured data - the technical side of the coin. The semantics surrounding the two are important - to date we have basically said in e-Gov IG Lets make Open (Standard) Data Open (to the Public) - anyone coming in with no background knowledge - potentially such as as those working in policy from a non-IT background that is covered by initial Working Draft http://www.w3.org/TR/gov-data/'s /To: Any government wishing to set-up data.gov.* /(wiki version), is simply going to start to find it confusing. We have discussions on defining open data that are centered around the access/policy question, and we have discussions on Linked Open Gov Data that are veering into the technical. For the good of all involved, I feel we need to define, set, and stick to some basic terminology that doesn't confuse the two. /3) The majority of datasets, LOD or not, that are of real value, are developed, maintained and delivered by Government, like it or not. We know this without even looking at the LOD Projects work http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData#head-277d7f68544ce1a9e252f5c0080b6402cd983a49 (which interestingly, contains very little Government data, which is a worry as it possibly indicates that Governments just AREN'T getting on board with early take up of LOD, despite the various legal requirements coming out world wide). / /How have you arrived at the above bearing in mind the pivotal role of DBpedia? Basically, this is about a Linked Open Data Space derived from Wikipedia snapshots which have little or no Govt. data. Of course, things get much better across depth, quality, and linked density dimensions when Govt. data is cross linked with LOD spaces like DBpedia etc./ Quite simply - It is Government that conducts the majority of hard statistical research and collates data. DBpedia, or indeed any other commercial enterprise, including Academia, does not equal the sum total of Linked Open Data. They do indeed provide a pivotal and valuable service - but only in the sense that Google does with searches. They are a reseller of Data in that sense - but Government is, and will remain for a long time, the primary producer of raw datasets. If there were huge chunks of Government Datasets floating around in the public domain waiting to be linked, it would of been done by someone already, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. As Thomas points out: /we have tons of government data with a legal obligation to make them available to the public (at least in Europe, and especially environmental data), and we are looking for means to do so in the most efficient way. /While he is referring to the technical aspect here, the inference and reality to us all is clear. Government datasets are a small percentage of what is openly available and being linked. Primarily due to access, which has much to do with issues that Government considers important, such as politics, provenance, authority and trust. I am not counting resellers in this, as that in itself raises further issues about why some organisations have access to this first hand data, and why the man on the street often doesn't. / 3) We accept that Linked (Open) Data is the purview of the Linking Open Data W3C Project - there is probably little we can add to the discussion here apart from supporting them in thier own work of IDing
Re: [agenda] eGov IG Call, 25 Nov 2009, item 6
I think Thomas makes some excellent points. Is it possible as a group to agree on something akin to the following? 1) Open Data refers to how data is accessed and is primarily a political/policy consideration 2) Linked (Open) Data refers to how data is structured and delivered and is primarily a technological/standards consideration 3) The majority of datasets, LOD or not, that are of real value, are developed, maintained and delivered by Government, like it or not. We know this without even looking at the LOD Projects work http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData#head-277d7f68544ce1a9e252f5c0080b6402cd983a49 (which interestingly, contains very little Government data, which is a worry as it possibly indicates that Governments just AREN'T getting on board with early take up of LOD, despite the various legal requirements coming out world wide). 3) We accept that Linked (Open) Data is the purview of the Linking Open Data W3C Project - there is probably little we can add to the discussion here apart from supporting them in thier own work of IDing datasets that can be linked. In support of this point, e-Government will be as any other entity in this regard, and the methodologies in delivering LOD will not likely differ to the rest of the world or society, much as there is little difference in Web Content Delivery between Government models and Commercial/Public models. In that sense I agree with Thomas 100% when it comes to a technology model. It will be Semantic, and RDF is likely to become the dominant paradigm, if not the only one. 5) Open Data therefore is what we SHOULD be focused on - not in the sense of forcing a standard on Gov in terms of Open Data Delivery policy, but in Education and Outreach. The question of non-RDF data consumers is almost moot. Given the time scales we are operating on, it is akin to asking at the start of the first version of HTML how does hyperlinked content support .txt based users such as BBS systems. Non semantic, non-RDF, pre HTML 5 browsers and technologies will be legacy before we know it, probably while we are still discussing all this. I mean it. This leaves us with two outcomes. The first is that the current user base that Thomas identifies as professional RDF consumers will inevitably drive the conversion of their suppliers data into RDF/XML formats, essentially as a snowball effect. GIS Data is a good example of where this is already happening. The second is that as Thomas says, human-readable formats HAVE to be provided - ultimately the user is human, and the transition on the tech side between how the machine reads it, and how it is displayed to the user in a usable, displayable form should be seamless. Ultimately the user should not even realise that they are doing anything but looking at a web page of results that they have asked a server for. This is where I do disagree with Thomas. A Federation of providers is a nice concept, but it is too far off to think about, and will be inevitable in the end so probably doesn't need to be focused on. I believe that the key to overcoming the mistrust issue is three-fold: a) Focusing on educating Governments on WOG methodologies in adopting inter-agency delivery on a National level - ie: promote the creation of the data.gov.* model. The international model is far to scary a prospect for most Governments to contemplate. b) Educating Government on the ROI in making Data open to the public c) Educating Government in ways in which clearly marked-off data spaces with a trusted provenance can still mean open data delivery for all - essentially this already happens whenever data is published, even in a HTML/PDF format - having data in the public domain does not mean giving access to the original uncorrupted dataset. Just some thoughts. Cheers Chris Thomas Bandholtz wrote: There has been much discussion about *Open* Data in the eGov list these days, which is a rather political question. I am currently not so much concerned about openness, more about *Linked* Data, as we have tons of government data with a legal obligation to make them available to the public (at least in Europe, and especially environmental data), and we are looking for means to do so in the most efficient way. So, among the six items of today's agenda, I find number 6 the most challenging: 6. Discussion: Government Linked Data, Techniques and Technologies [35min] some considerations: + how does linked data support (non-RDF) data consumers? First of all: Linked Data supports RDF data consumers. Human readable formats should also be provided based on content negotiation. Some providers have dedicated HTML formats, others have not. Those who haven't depend on some available, general purpose linked data browser. The latest discussion about the state of such tools has been started by
