 |
 |
I think this is a nice list Eric. I particularly like the iterative approach. I’m not a huge fan of #6, and #7 seems like it might be challenging from a data synchronization perspective. But it’s still a nice list. While I think it’s right that you don’t want to let the perfect (a complete and perfect domain model) be the enemy of the good (iterative data publishing on the Web), it definitely helps if a Linked Data project has an idea of what types of resources it is putting on the Web, and how they potentially fit in with other stuff that’s already there. I honestly think the hardest thing is to establish *why* you want to publish data on the Web: who is it for, how will they use it, etc. If the honest answer is simply “it is the right thing to do”, “we want to get a grant” or “we want to build the semweb” that’s fine, but it’s not ideal. Ideally there’s an actual use case where exposing structured data on the Web yields potential benefits, that can be realized with Linked Data. //Ed On Nov 19, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Nov 19, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Eric, if you want to leap into the linked data world in the fastest, >> easiest way possible, then I suggest looking at microdata markup, e.g. >> schema.org. [1] … >> >> [1] http://schema.org > > > I don’t advocate this as the fastest, easiest way possible because it forces RDF “aggregators” to parse HTML, and thus passes a level of complexity down the processing chain. Expose RDF as RDF, not embedded in another format. I do advocate the inclusion of schema.org mark-up, RDFa, etc. into HTML but rather as a level of refinement. —Eric Morgan