A few comments in regards to the proposal draft and "linked data" specifically:
* maybe consider calling out that you are striving towards implementing the Linked Data Platform 1.0 W3C draft (at least that's how I understand the proposal) * will Linda (or whatever name you'll choose) cover data governance aspects too. right now to me it looks like the assumption is that data is already "normalized" where enterprise data usually isn't in real life. That's why you have ETL processes and data governance models. That actually contradicts one of Berners-Lee statements in the Ted talk. I wouldn't assume that enterprises won't open their data because they want to keep it secret I would rather assume that there's a huge leap step towards transforming legacy data into usable (whatever that means in practice) linked data. Maybe how to transform legacy data into open linked data is even research subject. So my question is: will Linda be focusing on such data governance aspects too (it looks like LMF covers that aspect at least a bit in a wiki article)? Cheers Daniel On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>wrote: > Ted, > > I did read the whole thing, and I'd like to join you in drawing a > curtain in front of the man. > > The proposers of this project didn't create the problem of the term > 'linked data', and they can't fix it. As you suggest, all they can do > is pick a TLP name that is neutral to positive in relation to it. > Since they've already signed up for finding some other girl, boy, or > dinosaur to take to the dance here, I think we can leave the question > of the badness of the phrase 'linked data' behind. > > --benson > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
