W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-comments@w3.org > January 2017

Re: DWBP comments

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:49:20 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1PzySBGw0yRw7DKaAPNBgbG6560krPRXd59dj3VRnO1r4Qg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Cc: Laurent Lefort <laurent.lefort@abs.gov.au>, "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org" <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
Hi Laurent and Phil,

Thank you very much for your comments! We are glad to include a statement
on the final version of the document
concerning the need of further advice in specific areas.

As Phil mentioned, there is much more to be done and discussed about these
topics. We hope to continue with the discussions and if possible to
contribute with other working groups. It would also be great to work on
complementary material for the DWBP document.

kind regards,
Bernadette

2017-01-16 12:15 GMT-03:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>:

> Hi Laurent,
>
> Thanks very much for your review of the BP doc as part of the AC review.
> That detail of the review process is member confidential but I hope you'll
> allow me to air your issues in public here.
>
> On the EU Data Portal
> =====================
> We have been in touch with the relevant folks throughout. See, for
> example, https://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/content/best-practices-
> data-web in which they encourage review of the document. This is actually
> tied in to the Share-PSI project that I ran on the related policy issues
> https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/.
>
> Temporal aspects
> ================
>
> True: DWBP does not go into a lot of detail on this. As it says in the
> intro:
>
> "The Best Practices set out in this document serve a general purpose of
> publishing and using Data on the Web and are domain & application
> independent. They can be extended or complemented by other Best Practices
> documents or standards that cover more specialized contexts."
>
> *However*, as you know, spatial and temporal aspects are being addressed,
> at least in part, by the Spatial Data WG. See, for example,
> https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#provide-context. Rob Atkinson's work on
> QB4ST (https://www.w3.org/TR/qb4st/) is obviously relevant to helping
> define spatial-temporal slices through statistical data cubes.
>
> Trust
> =====
> I offer the Data Quality Vocabulary as a partial answer in that it
> provides a framework in which the appropriateness of a dataset for a
> particular use can be described (by the publisher or a user). The Dataset
> Usage Vocab is also relevant in this regard.
> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/ https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv/
>
> Privacy
> =======
> Things like preparing and publishing a Privacy Impact Assessment, like the
> Share-PSI work, is out of scope for W3C in that it is a policy-related
> issue where W3C is concerned only with technical issues. Again, quoting
> from the document's intro:
>
> "Not all data and metadata should be shared openly, however. Security,
> commercial sensitivity and, above all, individuals' privacy need to be
> taken into account. It is for data publishers to determine policy on which
> data should be shared and under what circumstances. Data sharing policies
> are likely to assess the exposure risk and determine the appropriate
> security measures to be taken to protect sensitive data, such as secure
> authentication and authorization."
>
> API Keys
> ========
> It's true, there is no mention of API Keys, however, the doc does point to
> a number of frameworks and sources of info that do support them.
>
> Vocabulary choices
> ==================
>
> On vocabulary choices, the BP doc points to earlier work on this
> https://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#VOCABULARIES in which a number of points are
> made. What the paper you point to refers to as Frankenstein ontologies
> would be avoided by following that advice, specifically:
>
> "Vocabularies should be used by other datasets
> If the vocabulary is used by other authoritative Linked Open datasets that
> is helpful. It is in re-use of vocabularies that we achieve the benefits of
> Linked Open Data. Selected vocabularies from third parties should be
> already in use by other datasets, as this shows that they are already
> established in the LOD community, and thus better candidates for wider
> adoption and reuse.
>
> For example: An analysis on the use of vocabularies on the Linked Data
> cloud reveals that FOAF is reused by more than 55 other vocabularies."
>
> Summary
> =======
> Even though I am able to point to at least partial answers to your
> comments, it's clear that you are absolutely correct that there is much
> more that can be said on these topics. I will ask the editors to consider
> adding a short statement to the effect that further advice should be sought
> in specific areas as you suggest.
>
> Thanks again
>
> Phil.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> Data Strategist, W3C
> http://www.w3.org/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>
>


-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2017 15:50:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 18 January 2017 15:50:23 UTC