On 3 March 2010 16:52, Andy Powell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Or to put that another way, "is there a variant of 'open data' that isn't
> Linked Data (i.e. that doesn't require the use of RDF and SPARQL) but that
> allows the museums sector to achieve workably machine-readable,
> semantically-interoperable data?". Standards like the OAI-PMH and SRU would
> be examples of this.
>
This is a good debate to have (and I still have some doubts as to the
benefits of Linked Data vs 'open data'), but I should point out, as it has
been to me, that you don't need to use, or publish a SPARQL endpoint in
order to 'do' Linked Data - it's just as valid to simply use RDF (the domain
model) to structure your data, and then to expose this in some form via URIs
(eg as RDF-XML, RDF-JSON, or some other variant).
It was described to me that SPARQL is 'heavy' Linked Data, whereas simply
exposing your RDF triples is 'light' Linked Data. And perhaps the work
that's being done around REST APIs for Linked Data may present a 'medium'
option...
Frankie
--
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com
****************************************************************
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/
****************************************************************
|