[euopendata] ICT-2010 networking session on gov linked data

Sat Feb 27 19:11:15 UTC 2010

On 2010-2-27 19:34 , Sören Auer wrote:
> On 27.02.2010 5:50, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> You are completely right, but I would rather keep the title as simple as
>>> possible. I added 'public' to the first mentioning of governmental data
>>> in the text, to make it a little clearer. Maybe that's sufficient?
>>
>> Not sure, to be honest. The title is what sticks, that is why I think it
>> would be better to have the 'Public' there...
> 
> Ok, lets see what others think and discuss this during the conference
> call on 9th of March. 

Sure.

>                         From my point of view "Public Governmental Linked
> Data" sounds a little cumbersome. I also think if Linked Data is finally
> used within and between governments for rather access restricted data
> this is fine with me too.
> 

You are right that restricted data integration is also in the realm of
things. But the emphasis of the moves in the US and in the UK is really
on the public side and, I suspect, so is the EU's interest in the matter...

Linking Public Governmental Data?
Publishing and Interlinking Public Governmental Data? (A bit longish,
but less cumbersome)

>> To be explicitly listed as 'supported', which is something that will
>> appear on, say, the conference's public documents, we have to know what
>> this means, what it entails, what the obligations are. What you site
>> above is perfectly fine, but the respective organizations have to agree
>> with that before we list them. It is like putting a logo there for some
>> sort of a sponsorship (actually, logos of such organization *might*
>> appear on the public material!), we cannot just do it in the wild... I
>> know that for W3C I have to get an agreement from our comm guys before a
>> logo or such public statement could be made. (Do not misunderstand me: I
>> am 99% sure that this will not be a problem in this case)
>>
>> That is why we have to agree among ourselves what this really mean and
>> see if our home organizations is able to do that. The fact that we are
>> part of this committee is a bit different and may not be enough...
> 
> Ok, so what's your suggestion? The additional information is only for
> the selection panel, so it won't appear publicly. I want to list there
> every project and organization, which is important to achieve the
> objectives of the networking session and signalized some kind of
> "informal" support in the sense of supporting the preparation, helping
> to raise awareness, active participation in the networking session etc.
> I think it would be a little overkill for this kind of event to
> formalize this more, but feel free to make concrete suggestions, if you
> think that I'm wrong.

I told you I just may be pedantic...:-) And you are right that
formalizing this more for this project is a bit over the top...

But: if we list all the persons and their respective organizations that
we collectively represent in this group (which you seem to suggest),
that sounds like a fine idea. And it is also perfectly o.k. if, say,
Michael Hasenblas does not only list DERI but also the LATC project he
is coordinating. But then the text should not single out individual
projects...

Does the structure of the project proposal allow for such a list? If
not, I guess we can simply link a page to the text. That may be the best.

Ivan

> 
> Sören

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF   : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
vCard  : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3974 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/euopendata/attachments/20100227/d025d7e7/attachment-0003.bin>