Thanks for outlining the question, Mia. If I could add another dimension
worth considering, it's the question of whether we're equally interested
(or disinterested) in publishing and "consuming" linked data. I think
we've put a fair bit of mental effort into the publishing part, even if
little has actually been published by the UK cultural heritage sector
that qualifies as "linked data", but we've not really done much with
consuming linked data sources (with some exceptions, again). Actually,
this touches on point 4 below: does it really qualify as "linked data"
if it is only "linkable" rather than actively linking to other data
sources?
If you're very bored, I wrote a bit more on this in my account of the
linked data meeting at Collections Trust last week: http://bit.ly/cyNw03
Cheers, Jeremy
Jeremy Ottevanger
Web Developer, Museum Systems Team
Museum of London
46 Eagle Wharf Road
London. N1 7ED
Tel: 020 7410 2207
Fax: 020 7600 1058
Email: [log in to unmask]
www.museumoflondon.org.uk
Spectacular new ?20 million Galleries of Modern London opening at Museum of London on 28 May 2010.
Find out more at www.museumoflondon.org.uk
Before printing, please think about the environment
-----Original Message-----
From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Mia
Sent: 03 March 2010 14:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [MCG] What do you mean by 'linked data'? Was: Re: How niche is
too niche?
Bearing in mind Bridget's request below, and so that we're all talking
about
something similar - what do you mean by 'linked data'?
The original definition (from
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html)
was:
1.
Use URIs as names for things
2.
Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names.
3.
When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the
standards (RDF, SPARQL)
4.
Include links to other URIs. so that they can discover more things.
I think a lot of the confusion, resistance or general angst revolves
around
point 3 - even some geek-ish eyes glaze over at the mention of RDF or
SPARQL, and that they immediately put linked data in the 'too hard'
basket.
So one of my questions is - how strict a definition do we need to follow
to
achieve workably machine-readable, interoperable data?
When I say 'interoperable', I mean particularly semantic
interoperability -
to nick a definition from Wikipedia, "the ability to automatically
interpret
the information exchanged meaningfully and accurately in order to
produce
useful results as defined by the end users", or more simply, "what is
sent
is the same as what is understood".
For museums, this might mean that 'date made' has a common meaning,
whether
that means 'date painted' or 'date manufactured' in the context of your
particular collections.
So my second question - what does this definition mean in reality, for
you?
Does it differ if you're publishing or consuming linked data?
Another, bigger question: how do you think APIs and linked data can work
together, or do you see them as an either/or choice, particularly when
resources are limited?
cheers, Mia
On 3 March 2010 13:45, Bridget McKenzie
<[log in to unmask]
> wrote:
> I would appeal, though, for writers to explain if new terms or
acronyms are
> introduced, or to demonstrate by linking to an example where a
technology is
> used.
>
****************************************************************
For mcg information visit the mcg website at
http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
To manage your subscription to this email list visit
http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
For mcg information visit the mcg website at
http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
To manage your subscription to this email list visit
http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|