Re: dwbp-ACTION-123: Call for comments

I agree (again) that we should not try to define 'data'

Steve,

I was thinking that instead of using "data" in certain contexts, we
should use a more generic definition, like information resource, maybe.
"data in databases" also left me reflective, since I couldn't imagine
data that is not stored on databases....

Laufer,

I don't like using Broker as a definition for our document. It's a word
used to address a function that can be played by the publisher or by
consumer and it's related to marketing context. The broker is someone
that negotiates something, is the intermediary.

Instead of using "published data" I would like to use "public data" in
contrast to "private data". "Web data" is meant to be public, I think.
When someone publishes data on the Web it's intrinsec that this data is
public (it may be not discoverable, thus, but still is public data)

Of course that private data can be published on the Web, but there are
some concerns and issues around this point. If we're going to talk about
private data, then we would have to talk about privacy and ownership, I
think.

Just adding metadata to the discussion around "data" with no metadata
about them (recursive rhetoric :-p):

I think sometimes we confuse "data catalog" with other resources that
are on the Web. For instance, a document that contains metadata added
using microdata is not a data catalog, but it provides metadata about a
resource. Also, in another situation, we can have metadata attached as
tags in some x format, and this data can be harvested and consumed, it
can be enriched or restructured, or even inferred by statistic methods
that analyse text available as information.

This group Is meant to help people to make this kind of resources
discoverable (and etcetera) by using w3c recommended technologies, so
It's better open a wide range of situations, not only that in which data
catalogs are available.

all the best,
yaso





On 12/8/14 5:21 PM, Makx Dekkers wrote:
> Steven,
> 
>  
> 
> I just wanted to make a point related to your comments:
> 
>  
> 
> <quote>
> 
> Challenges:
> 
> 3.  Here I think you need to define up front what "Data" published on
> the Web is all about.  Many readers may not understand that webpages
> themselves are not "data" because unstructured text is stored in a
> different kind of repository than "data".  A little history of the Web,
> and how "data" in databases came to be published online - as opposed to
> behind a firewall in a traditional enterprise application - would be
> helpful here as we can't presume our audience understands this.
> 
> </quote>
> 
>  
> 
> This comes back to a discussion we had in the beginning of this group:
> what types of data are we talking about? (see:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2014Feb/0029.html).
> 
>  
> 
> Your statement that webpages are not data seems to exclude things like a
> set of interlinked webpages that contain legal texts,  public
> procurement specifications, or other collections of snippets of text. I
> don't think we should narrow the definition of 'data' in this way.
> 
>  
> 
> The problem that I see is that an attempt to define what 'data' is,
> implies that we also need to agree on what is 'not-data', and that may
> be hard.
> 
>  
> 
> Makx.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Steven Adler [mailto:adler1@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 7:13 PM
> To: Laufer
> Cc: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group
> Subject: Re: dwbp-ACTION-123: Call for comments
> 
>  
> 
> Laufer,
> 
> I enjoy reading your English.  You write very well.  Some comments:
> 
> Introduction:
> 
> 1.  I'm not keen on the abstraction of roles in the first paragraph.
> Publisher, Broker, and Consumer seems restrictive.  Why should we
> prescribe roles and responsibilities for each, and how is a Broker
> really different than a Consumer?
> 
> Audience:
> 
> 2.  It is not always clear that your audience is as wide as you say it
> is.  Sometimes you seem to be writing for laymen and your descriptions
> are clear.  Then a sentence later you switch to technical terms and your
> audience seems to be for IT professionals who understand what machine
> readable semantics are all about.  I think you should try to write for
> laymen, even if it takes longer to explain terminology, because it will
> ensure the document is read by the largest possible audience.
> 
> Challenges:
> 
> 3.  Here I think you need to define up front what "Data" published on
> the Web is all about.  Many readers may not understand that webpages
> themselves are not "data" because unstructured text is stored in a
> different kind of repository than "data".  A little history of the Web,
> and how "data" in databases came to be published online - as opposed to
> behind a firewall in a traditional enterprise application - would be
> helpful here as we can't presume our audience understands this.
> 
> Lifecyle:
> 
> 4.  Is the Data on the Web lifecycle different than other Data Lifecycle
> Management lifecycles?  How?  Is it possible to compare and contrast
> them to show the reader what is the same, what is different, and what is
> new?
> 
> Best Practices:
> 
> 5.  I don't see how we are using the Publisher, Broker, Consumer roles
> or why they event need to be defined.  Data is published.  Period.  We
> are concerned with how to publish it in the best way.  How it is
> brokered and consumed after is not part of our standard.  Nicht war?
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Steve
> 
> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
> 
> Laufer ---12/05/2014 09:46:08 AM---Hello all, I wrote a description for
> the beginning of the metadata section and I want
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> 
> 
> Laufer <laufer@globo.com <mailto:laufer@globo.com> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To:
> 
> 
> Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
> <mailto:public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Date:
> 
> 
> 12/05/2014 09:46 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subject:
> 
> 
> dwbp-ACTION-123: Call for comments
> 
>   _____  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I wrote a description for the beginning of the metadata section and I
> want to ask the group to comment:
> 
> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#metadata
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Cheers,
> Laufer
> 


-- 
Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br
W3C Brazil Office
@yaso

55 11 5509-3537 (4025)
skype: yasocordova

Received on Monday, 8 December 2014 20:53:35 UTC