[OpenSpending] messages about standards

[James McKinney]

On 2012-10-05, at 10:08 AM, Friedrich Lindenberg wrote:

> As for the others: XML and CSV seem very realistic for me, both have
> great tooling and are widely used. Linked Data is something that I
> have a personal problem with. It would be interesting to survey other
> data consumers, it seems to me like LD is mostly a proposition made by
> data publishers with fewer people actually wanting to use it.

Could you expand on your problems with linked data (by which we mean RDF, I assume)?

In general, there should be a preference to publishing the same data in a variety of formats. For geospatial, I know many governments publish in both shapefile and KML. Shapefile is favored by the GIS crowd, whereas KML is often the format sought by web developers. CSV is the most accessible structured format. I wouldn't put (the XML serialization of) RDF that far behind XML in terms of complexity.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/openspending/attachments/20121005/3a830ff7/attachment.html>