Data Portal @ linkeddatafragments.org

Matches in ESWC 2020 for { ?s ?p The paper presents Piveau, a platform for "Large-scale Open Data Management". The authors provide several arguments on why a new platform for open data management is needed and how their solutions compare with other open and popular solutions, and present some details of their implementation of the system. All the components of the system are open-source and publicly available on github. The solution relies on semantic web technologies and is deployed on https://www.europeandataportal.eu/ and so meets the requirements of the In-Use Track. I would like to see the paper published and presented at ESWC, although I have a few comments that I encourage the authors to address before final publication. My main comment is about the core hypothesis, which is: "a more sophisticated application of Semantic Web technologies can lower many barriers in Open Data publishing and reuse". I was happy to see that you define this core hypothesis early in the paper, but at the end I was somewhat disappointed that you haven't completely tested and validated this hypothesis. Throughout the paper you outline how semantic web technologies are used and how other solutions don't use such technologies, but then you don't make it clear how the use of these technologies can help (or have helped) the end users of the system. - In Section 6, Table 1, you are comparing features, and e.g. you are giving your solution 2 points for having a "Linked Data interface" through a "SPARQL endpoint". But the main question is: why is this needed and how can it help? If I can achieve my goals through a simple JSON based REST API, then why SPARQL? Similarly, one of the semantic technologies you are using is to achieve "Quality Assurance" comparing with the other solutions. Can you more clearly outline why this is important and how one could have achieved it without e.g. using SHACL and how crucial is the role of semantic web technologies here? - One suggestion is to use examples throughout the paper. You seem to have a really large deployment that you can use to derive examples. https://www.europeandataportal.eu/ shows 483,714 datasets. How would the solution for europeandataportal.eu look like if it wasn't based on Piveau? - Related to the above, it would be good to know whether RDF enables particular forms of reasoning that a standard JSON meta-data based solution cannot provide. - Is there a reason you do not mention the Socrata Platform which is a very widely used open data publication platform? I believe it is also open https://github.com/socrata ? - Another core question / food for thought: why not using Wikidata for all the meta-data, which has the additional benefit that you will contribute to a large and completely open knowledge base? And on the technical side, do you really need to rely on Virtuoso? Couldn't you contribute facts to Wikidata instead and query the public APIs?". }

• Paper.60_Review.0 hasContent "The paper presents Piveau, a platform for "Large-scale Open Data Management". The authors provide several arguments on why a new platform for open data management is needed and how their solutions compare with other open and popular solutions, and present some details of their implementation of the system. All the components of the system are open-source and publicly available on github. The solution relies on semantic web technologies and is deployed on https://www.europeandataportal.eu/ and so meets the requirements of the In-Use Track. I would like to see the paper published and presented at ESWC, although I have a few comments that I encourage the authors to address before final publication. My main comment is about the core hypothesis, which is: "a more sophisticated application of Semantic Web technologies can lower many barriers in Open Data publishing and reuse". I was happy to see that you define this core hypothesis early in the paper, but at the end I was somewhat disappointed that you haven't completely tested and validated this hypothesis. Throughout the paper you outline how semantic web technologies are used and how other solutions don't use such technologies, but then you don't make it clear how the use of these technologies can help (or have helped) the end users of the system. - In Section 6, Table 1, you are comparing features, and e.g. you are giving your solution 2 points for having a "Linked Data interface" through a "SPARQL endpoint". But the main question is: why is this needed and how can it help? If I can achieve my goals through a simple JSON based REST API, then why SPARQL? Similarly, one of the semantic technologies you are using is to achieve "Quality Assurance" comparing with the other solutions. Can you more clearly outline why this is important and how one could have achieved it without e.g. using SHACL and how crucial is the role of semantic web technologies here? - One suggestion is to use examples throughout the paper. You seem to have a really large deployment that you can use to derive examples. https://www.europeandataportal.eu/ shows 483,714 datasets. How would the solution for europeandataportal.eu look like if it wasn't based on Piveau? - Related to the above, it would be good to know whether RDF enables particular forms of reasoning that a standard JSON meta-data based solution cannot provide. - Is there a reason you do not mention the Socrata Platform which is a very widely used open data publication platform? I believe it is also open https://github.com/socrata ? - Another core question / food for thought: why not using Wikidata for all the meta-data, which has the additional benefit that you will contribute to a large and completely open knowledge base? And on the technical side, do you really need to rely on Virtuoso? Couldn't you contribute facts to Wikidata instead and query the public APIs?"".