Re: DWBP Abstract comments....

Thanks for proposed edits. Just a couple of remarks in-line:



*1: “This document provides best practices related to the publication and
usage of data on the Web designed to help support a self-sustaining
ecosystem.”*

No changes just comments for sentence 1:  Loved the first sentence
particularly the term “self-sustaining ecosystem”, this concept to me
embodies the concept of   making the web data more valuable to the world
community than it is today.

In this sentence, it is not entirely clear to which noun the clause
starting with ‘designed’ refers. Maybe better:



“*This document provides best practices related to the publication and
usage of data on the Web. These best practices are designed to help support
a self-sustaining ecosystem*.”


>> Makx +1 I agree with your edit.

------



3*:  “**Publishers should make data discoverable and when reused consumers
should acknowledge the data publisher. “*

 Suggested changes for sentence 3:  I had to read this sentence several
times before I felt like like I understood the intent.  I recommended the
above rewording to make it a bit clearer, hopefully the original meaning
was changed.

I think you did indeed change the meaning. The original sentence said that
the *re-use* of data should be discoverable. However, I do already have a
problem with the original sentence because it contains instructions to
re-users that may not always be valid. It seems to say that if a company
takes data from the Web, they need to advertise that they did (ShareAlike)
and need to acknowledge the source (Attribution). I wonder if we want to go
that far. For example, I don’t think there is a requirement for re-users of
data to make their product or service available on the Web or to advertise
it, and if data is published in the public domain (or under a CCZero
licence), a publisher does not ask for attribution so why make this a best
practice?

Okay I thought the original intent was to make acknowledgement when using
data a requirement.  This may be true of some communities, but not of
others.  Better to tone back this back a bit or perhaps even leave out the
last part of the sentence.

Eric S
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> Thanks for proposed edits. Just a couple of remarks in-line:
>
>
>
> *1: “This document provides best practices related to the publication and
> usage of data on the Web designed to help support a self-sustaining
> ecosystem.”*
>
> No changes just comments for sentence 1:  Loved the first sentence
> particularly the term “self-sustaining ecosystem”, this concept to me
> embodies the concept of   making the web data more valuable to the world
> community than it is today.
>
> In this sentence, it is not entirely clear to which noun the clause
> starting with ‘designed’ refers. Maybe better:
>
>
>
> “*This document provides best practices related to the publication and
> usage of data on the Web. These best practices are designed to help support
> a self-sustaining ecosystem*.”
>
>
>
> 2: “*Data should be published, discovered and understood by humans and
> machines.”*
>
> Suggested changes for sentence 2:  I recommended changing the second
> sentence to underscore producing and consuming data can be done by machines
> and humans.
>
> This now implies that humans and machines should publish data. My
> suggestion:
>
>
>
> “*Data should be published in such a way that it can be discovered and
> understood by humans and machines*.”
>
>
>
> 3*:  “**Publishers should make data discoverable and when reused
> consumers should acknowledge the data publisher. “*
>
>  Suggested changes for sentence 3:  I had to read this sentence several
> times before I felt like like I understood the intent.  I recommended the
> above rewording to make it a bit clearer, hopefully the original meaning
> was changed.
>
> I think you did indeed change the meaning. The original sentence said that
> the *re-use* of data should be discoverable. However, I do already have a
> problem with the original sentence because it contains instructions to
> re-users that may not always be valid. It seems to say that if a company
> takes data from the Web, they need to advertise that they did (ShareAlike)
> and need to acknowledge the source (Attribution). I wonder if we want to go
> that far. For example, I don’t think there is a requirement for re-users of
> data to make their product or service available on the Web or to advertise
> it, and if data is published in the public domain (or under a CCZero
> licence), a publisher does not ask for attribution so why make this a best
> practice?
>
>
>
> Makx.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2014 18:20:35 UTC