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

RE: dwbp-ISSUE-25: Review requirements: R-SelectHighValue and R-SelectHighDemand

From: Lee, Deirdre <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:51:09 +0000
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DA0D3B2CE5F5614AA2307A974AFAC39BFB61887B@UDSMBX02.uds.nuigalway.ie>
Following last week's discussion, I propose the following updated descriptions for these requirements. As Antoine pointed out, DWBP WG offers guidelines for publishing data on the web POST selection of what data to publish. However we can recommend that an indicator of why the data was selected be included with the data.



R-SelectHighValue



    Datasets selected for publication should be of high-value, which should be indicated in a quantifiable manner/property.



R-SelectDemand



    Datasets selected for publication should be in demand by potential users, which should be indicated in a quantifiable manner/property.









-----Original Message-----
From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
Sent: 22 August 2014 12:32
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: dwbp-ISSUE-25: Review requirements: R-SelectHighValue and R-SelectHighDemand



Hi Deirdre,



Coming back to old mail, and trying to progress towards closing these issues...



I agree on capturing obvious requirement, especially if we can derive some requirements from them/



Besides the difficulty of measuring them (even for HighDemand I'm not sure this is doable in an objective manner) my problem is about the target point in the data publication process. The requirements are about "selecting" datasets. If we're in position to write a dcat:Dataset entry with some quality properties for a dataset, it probably implies that the selection of the dataset has already been made. So strictly speaking the requirement doesn't really impact the vocabularies. Unless it's re-written to indicate that it's about selecting vocabularies, and keeping track of the motivations for doing so, in order to guide later consumption.



Best,



Antoine



On 8/4/14 4:30 PM, Lee, Deirdre wrote:

> Just because requirements are obvious, doesn't mean we shouldn't

> include them :) Measuring what 'high-value' is may be subjective, but 'Datasets selected for publication should be in demand by potential users' is measurable. However not sure if not publishing data because there is no immediate/obvious demand is good best practice either...

> Do these requirements make sense in the context of quality vocabulary?

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker

> [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]

> Sent: 03 June 2014 23:19

> To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>

> Subject: dwbp-ISSUE-25: Review requirements: R-SelectHighValue and

> R-SelectHighDemand

>

> dwbp-ISSUE-25: Review requirements: R-SelectHighValue and

> R-SelectHighDemand

>

> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/25


>

> Raised by: Antoine Isaac

> On product:

>

> Could #20 (Radar Parlamentar) be grouped with #12 (Dados.gov.br)? It seems the former is actually a usage case of the latter.

>

>

>


Received on Friday, 29 August 2014 10:51:40 UTC

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