URI structural alternatives: ie: http://data.ballarat.vic.gov.au/

[ghost]

Whilst being considerate of broader issues with respect to the constitutional considerations the URI structure and maintainers of datasets may meritoriously be supported by way of local gov.

Therein notes on URI Guidelines for publishing Linked Datasets on data.gov.au v0.1 with particular regard to point "Dataset ROOT" / no 9 - may be overly specific?

Examples of datasets that would likely require local maintenance include can be considered by looking at City of Ballarat also noting related fields of work that may have sameAs benefits via schema.org as an example...

In-turn this would relate to the potential use of HTTP Signatures as i've demonstrated using json-ld playground here

[dr-shorthair]

Yep - this is definitely an issue.
Officially the AGLDWG only cares about *.data.gov.au domains.
But as we already have systems like data.vic.gov.au - not under AGLDWG jurisdiction, but clearly of interest - it begins to look as if the token ".data." could be treated as a flag when it appears anywhere in a domain name before ".gov.au" . This is not dissimilar to the pragmatic interpretation of the guidelines around "/id/" or "/data/" or "/def/" or "/doc/" in the path of a URI - for perfectly good governance reasons it may be desirable to nest the token several steps below the domain. There would be some interesting rules for systems consuming such URIs, particularly in the national/state/LGA case you mention, but surely do-able.

[ghost]

Content negotiation related methodologies could provide some assistance...

I've quickly found 2 other references 1 2

Hope that's helpful...

[dr-shorthair]

It's not content negotiation (that's about MIME-types). Its about URI interpretation or re-writing. These things are often encountered together, but are distinct phases or concerns.

[ghost]

:) I was thinking whether the data gets served-up using a ..gov.au domain structure is different from whether it's made accessible via a specified data...au or data...*.au

Could be ballarat.vic.gov.au/localamenities#toilets for example...

[ghost]

FYI - Note: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2016Aug/0000.html

also noting: https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues#httpRange-14

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0092

[nicholascar]

Invalid due to the changes in URI guidelines

[nicholascar]

We now have a single domain dedicated for Linked Data: linked.data.gov.au. This domain is available for URI allocation to any member of the AGLDWG which includes entities at all level in Australian government, although, to date, we have no non Federal members.

New Guidelines are issued at: https://github.com/AGLDWG/guidelines

Closing this Issue.

[mediaprophet]

Funny reading this; being the 'ghost' who submitted it. You do realise, the probability DIDs will be used more often is now increasingly the case? was there any particular reason for narrowing the funnel down to those employed by CSIRO and similar? Was it a budget related consideration; or a view forms to cement a situational analysis that Australian contributions should mainly be by Australian government employees for the benefit of the nation overall..? i'm a little confused overall by the notes made in closing the issue, which i was alerted to whilst writing my works down about works carried out otherwise since starting in 2000 - can you forward me the CSIRO / Data61 related works from that time? or perhaps those more recently? Given 'environmental' issues, i'm otherwise publishing on webizen.net.au

therein - was looking for the 'toilet' example (that was such a plain example at the time)
article about fake news
discovery of toilets by way of government provided solutions at the time
related schemaorg work 1
related schemaorg work 2

I expect you've now solved the problem using your preferred business systems method? I'll go looking for the links, but if you can help make that easier, awesome.

Also - how's the Web of Things ontology work going? I see some notes about IoT and assume the Web of Things work is well underway? As part of the broader lifecycle works, et.al?

Links appreciated. I don't mind if their DIDs. Cheers.

[nicholascar]

I can answer some of your questions.

You asked about “narrowing the funnel” and if the focus is required to be Aust. Govt (for the benefit of all Australians).

Well, yes only members of this WG may create URIs using linked.data.gov.au as the resource is provisioned by government for government only. Membership of the WG is open to employees of any government in Australia - National, State & Local - and the expectation is that WG members represent the interests of their employing agency.

So this isn’t a general web resource for Australians like, say .id.au but it is open to all governments, not just Federal and we do have some active state agency reps in the group though no URIs have been allocated for state agencies yet.

Note the single namespace is protected for long-term stability by an inter-departmental Memorandum of Understanding between 6 Federal agencies.

Also, since this is a tightly governed, hierarchical namespace, we don’t plan to support distributed IDs here. They sound interesting and I’ve even myself authored a paper on BitTorrent-based identifiers but they are something else to what’s implemented here.

We are still able to support URIs for real-world things and, if we take on IDs for physical samples as planned, we will have millions of URIs resolving to landing pages in catalogues about real things.

We are currently using this domain for identifiers for every address in Australia and other spatial objects too as part of a Location Identifiers Federal govt. project.

If you want answers to those other questions, feel free to email me (see my GitHub account for details) or the Linked Data WG as a whole: http://www.linked.data.gov.au.