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

Re: [BP - MET] - Metadata quality

From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:26:59 -0300
Message-ID: <CA+pXJij7UQ3r4nu-0Ok8Es=q=Vogg4x--Kis4kLMGhwrBtsbFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi, Antoine,

Thank you for your comments.

Best,
Laufer


2014-05-30 6:18 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

> Hi Laufer,
>
> This 'meta-meta' level is not out-of-scope. In fact it's precisely what is
> identified in the requirements. And the vocabularies (especially the
> quality and granularity one) are precisely about this. By creating a
> vocabulary, we aim to promote its usage, assuming that this will result in
> higher-quality metadata (a voc like Q&G will be used to create metadata of
> course).
>
> So yes a lot of what you describe makes sense: it would be useful to focus
> on the quality of metadata, next to the current 'star schemes' that rather
> focus now on the technical way the data is published. This echoes with what
> others in the LOD community are also proposing either at the metadata
> quality level [1, 2] or the legal one [3]. (I guess the ODI also has
> several things like this).
>
> What worries me is the potential overlap with other streams of work in the
> WG. Your 'metadata' includes many things, including licenses and provenance
> (and I agree with it, see my comments on the UC document [4])
> I expect "quality/metrics" to be handled by the Q&G voc. 'License' may
> also happen as a separate line of work, if the requirements become stronger
> than expected (as discussed at [5])
> It's perhaps good to have some general discussion on this before we all
> dive further in our own areas...
>
>
> Meanwhile, I'm going to add a couple of pointers to the wiki: but that's
> just starting points to investigate further. In fact on provenance I have
> already sent something on the list [6]. Is it relevant for you?
>
> Best,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] http://www.seco.tkk.fi/publications/submitted/
> hyvonen-et-al-ldf-2014.pdf
> [2] http://bvatant.blogspot.fr/2012/02/is-your-linked-data-
> vocabulary-5-star_9588.html
> [3] http://lod-lam.net/summit/2011/06/06/proposed-a-4-star-
> classification-scheme-for-linked-open-cultural-metadata/
> [4] comment 7, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2014May/
> 0115.html
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2014May/0031.html
> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2014May/0027.html
>
>
> On 5/29/14 3:55 PM, Laufer wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> In our last teleconference, I commented about the idea of metadata
>> quality. I know it may sound like something meta-meta but I will try to
>> better explain what I am thinking.
>>
>> As we can see from the use cases we have collected, there are a lot of
>> different ways in which people are publishing data on the web. It seems
>> that we have a North in the linked data idea but many of the use cases in
>> our list are still collections of files published in data portals.
>>
>> In these portals we have data and metadata. The 5 stars open data scale
>> makes, in some sense, people think that data that have 5 stars are better
>> described than data with, for example, 3 stars. I don’t think that this is
>> necessarily true. Some of these data portals have a kind of best practices
>> that ask users to publish metadata together with data, and suggest, or
>> require, metadata content. Some portals have a fixed set of fields that
>> must be provided by the user. They are mandatory. So, one dataset with 3
>> stars could have a metadata set that helps a developer in a better way than
>> another one with 5 stars. The 5 stars don’t guarantee the metadata quality.
>> The metadata quality scale is not the same as the 5 stars open data scale.
>> I am not proposing to have a metadata quality scale. But I think it exists.
>>
>> In the Guidance on The Provision of Metadata <
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Guidance_on_the_Provision_of_Metadata>
>> page I listed a set of metadata types that is already being investigated by
>> diverse groups and could help to enhance the metadata quality of a dataset.
>> For each one of the metadata types we could give pointers to the groups
>> that are working in that specific topic and some examples using our use
>> cases. Some of these metadata types, related to data quality and data
>> usage, for example, are in the scope of our group. In my opinion, it is out
>> of the scope of our group to formally define each one of these metadata
>> types. Each one of them deserves an individual WG taking care of it. And
>> many already have these groups.
>>
>>
>> As I asked in the last teleconference, I would appreciate that DWBP WG
>> participants, which have information about initiatives working in each
>> metadata type, could put content and links in the wiki page, in a way that
>> other participants could study and put more detailed information about
>> these works, with comments and examples.
>>
>> I think this could be a good guide for users, to help them to publish
>> data, to choose data publishing tools, data portals, and also helping the
>> developers of the data publishing tools to include ways of enhancing the
>> metadata quality of datasets.
>>
>> As Bernadette pointed in her article, we have a set of different roles in
>> the Data on the Web ecosystem. People with different roles may benefit from
>> our guide, each one doing his part to enhance the overall ease and
>> efficiency of the ecosystem usage and the effects over society.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Laufer
>>
>>
>> --
>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>> .        .   . ..
>> .     ..       .
>>
>
>


-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2014 18:27:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:24:14 UTC