W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Does standardisation assume interoperability?

From: Joćo Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:02:42 -0300
To: "Lee, Deirdre" <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>, 'Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group' <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D00A81F3.8E587%jpalmeida@ieee.org>
Dear Deirdre and All,

I was the one on the call who objected to the idea that "standardized"
entails "interoperable².

However, I would like to say that I think that the R-MetadataInteroperable
and R-LicenseInteroperable requirements may be too abstract, and it may be
better to qualify the R-MetadataStandardized and R-LicenseStandardized using
the notion of interoperability.

Currently in UCR we have:

R-MetadataStandardized
Metadata should be standardized
R-MetadataInteroperable
Metadata should be interoperable
R-FormatStandardized
Data should be available in a standardized format
R-LicenseStandardized
Standard vocabularies should be used to describe licenses
R-LicenseInteroperable
Data licenses should be interoperable

To solve the issue, I would propose to revised these requirements as
follows:

R-MetadataFormatStandardized
Metadata should conform to standard formats to facilitate metadata
interoperability
R-FormatStandardized
Data should conform to standard formats to facilitate interoperability
R-LicenseStandardized
Data about the license(s) attributed to a dataset should conform to standard
formats to facilitate interoperability

(renaming R-MetadataStandardized to MetadataFormatStandardized and
elimininating the *Standardized requirements)

About the whole ³machine readable² debate, it is of course a different
story:
http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/36

Similar to Makx, I find it hard to live with the sloppy ³machine readable²
qualificationŠ  but, in order to come to a constructive suggestion for this
other issue as well, perhaps we could say:

R-FormatMachineRead(able)
Metadata should conform to standard formats that aim at facilitating
automated processing

Regards,
Joćo Paulo




From:  "Lee, Deirdre" <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>
Date:  Friday, August 8, 2014 at 11:43 AM
To:  'Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group' <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Subject:  Does standardisation assume interoperability?
Resent-From:  <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:43:50 +0000


Hi, 
 
We had a good call today, addressing many of the raised issues for UCR. One
issue that we felt warranted more discussion was
ISSUE-23: Review definition of interoperability
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/23
<https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/23>
 
The following questions were raised: Does standardisation imply
interoperability? Are there cases where data uses standards, but is not
interoperable? Can interoperability be achieved independent of
standardisation? In DWBP, should we have
 a specific definition of interoperability?
 
In the UCR, there are the following two requirements:
·        
R-MetadataInteroperable
·        
R-LicenseInteroperable
 
And also
·        
R-MetadataMachineRead

 
·        
R-LicenseMachineRead
·        
R-LicenseStandardized
 
Possible resolutions for the UCR could be:
a.      
Remove R­MetadataInteroperable and R-LicenseInteroperable from UCR because
they¹re redundant
b.     
Improve description of R-MetadataStandardized and R-LicenseStandardized
c.      
Other?
 
Cheers,
Deirdre
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deirdre Lee
Research Associate
eGovernment Domain (DEG)
Insight-NUIG
IDA BusinessPark, Lower Dangan,
Galway, Ireland
 
deirdre.lee@deri.org
skype: deirdrelee
twitter: @deirdrelee
linkedin:
ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/ <http://ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 17:03:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:24:16 UTC