- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:22:48 +0100
- To: "Lee, Deirdre" <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Looking at the tracker, I don't think was resolved? Others have given ample evidence that standards are not always interoperable. Personally, I favour removing • R-MetadataInteroperable • R-LicenseInteroperable And offer these definitions (which build on the existing ones in the UCR) • R-MetadataMachineRead Metadata should be machine-readable, i.e. structured and available primarily for consumption by machines rather than in natural language text. • R-MetadataStandardized Metadata should be standardized, i.e. follow a recognized approach that maximizes usefulness and interoperability. In other words, you've got more chance of matching up X and Y if X and Y both follow standards then if they don't, but there's no guarantee that they will match 1 - 1. On licenses I'm more hesitant as I'm wary of the WG committing to more than it can deliver. This time next week I may know whether a new project is going ahead that should help to increase the capacity of the group but for now, I rather like the existing definition which says: R-LicenseAvailable Data should be associated with a license. License is a type of metadata, so all metadata requirements also apply here. (I'd reword that slightly to: Data should be associated with a license. A license is a type of metadata so the requirements concerning machine readability and standardization of metadata also apply here.) Phil. On 29/08/2014 11:38, Lee, Deirdre wrote: > Hi all, > > In today's call I would like if possible to make a decision on this... > > Should we keep the following requirements: > > •R-MetadataInteroperable > •R-LicenseInteroperable > > In addition to the following requirements are defined: > > •R-MetadataMachineRead > •R-MetadataStandardized > > •R-LicenseMachineRead > •R-LicenseStandardized > > Discussion at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/23 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] > Sent: 22 August 2014 13:05 > To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: Does standardisation assume interoperability? > > Hi, > > I'm not sure that discussing too much interoperability will help us get a quick solution. In fact in what Deirdre put below, item (c) implies that (a) and (b) are not necessary (they're just 'standard-focused' rewriting of (c) ) > > I don't understand what Joao Paulo said. He proposed to get rid of the the *Standardized requirements but he suggests to add them back, in practice. > > In the end I would just keep > R-MetadataStandardized, making the point that standard should address the model, documentation and interoperability (as it should, see the intro at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization) > R-MetadataMachineReadable, assuming this includes format concerns (which with the first requirement gives you standardized formats). > > Best, > > Antoine > > On 8/11/14 4:40 PM, Lee, Deirdre wrote: >> Thanks for your input Giancarlo and Laufer. Is it fair to summarise as follows: >> >> Two datasets are interoperable if: >> >> a.They are modelled according to the same standard. >> >> b.They are modelled according to standards that are interoperable >> >> c.They are modelled according to the same formal representation (not necessarily standardised) >> >> (b) corresponds to a case where we know how the meaning of the elements in each standard relate to the elements in the other standard. >> >> (c) corresponds to the case where you have used a reference ontology to facilitate the interoperability of ECG data. >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Deirdre Lee >> >> Research Associate >> >> eGovernment Domain (DEG) >> >> Insight-NUIG >> >> IDA BusinessPark, Lower Dangan, >> >> Galway, Ireland >> >> deirdre.lee@deri.org <mailto:deirdre.lee@deri.org> >> skype: deirdrelee >> >> twitter: @deirdrelee >> >> linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/ <http://ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> *From:*Giancarlo Guizzardi [mailto:gguizzardi@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* 11 August 2014 09:00 >> *To:* Laufer >> *Cc:* Lee, Deirdre; Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group >> *Subject:* Re: Does standardisation assume interoperability? >> >> Folks, >> >> Regarding the two questions: >> >> (a) Does standardization entail interoperability? >> >> and (b) Can something be interoperable without being standardized? >> >> Let us first settled what we mean by interoperability. >> >> I will start with the following working definition of semantic interoperability: >> >> A model X is semantically interoperable with model Y if we know >> >> how the meaning of the elements in X relate to the meaning of elements in Y. >> >> If we take "meaning" in the sense of referential semantics, this means that >> >> we can always relate in the correct manner >> >> the referents of the model elements in X with the referents >> >> of the model elements in Y. >> >> With that in mind (and answering (b)), we can achieve interoperability whenever we are able >> >> to establish and fully understand the relation between the referents of X and Y. >> >> Good standards certainly facilitate that. >> >> However, if we put the question as "standardization ENTAILS interoperability" (question a), >> >> the answer is clearly no. To put it simply, this is because (among other reasons, including non-technical ones...) >> >> there are bad standards. Bad standards in the sense that they are not sufficiently expressive and clear in helping >> >> users to express their world views in terms of the standard. >> >> There are many examples of domains with multiple standards >> >> that it is far from obvious how to relate the meaning of things >> >> in standard X and with the meaning of things in standard Y. >> >> This is even the case in the so-called hard science domains. >> >> To cite on example in heart Electrophysiogy. >> >> In the following paper >> >> http://www.j-biomed-inform.com/article/S1532-0464(10)00118-8/pdf >> >> we show the difficulties in relating multiple existing ECG standards. >> >> The paper is actually both an example of lack interoperability with >> >> the presence of multiple standards as well as an example of >> >> interoperability achieved with a reference ontology that is >> >> not a standard, i.e., "interoperability without a standard". >> >> Best, >> >> Giancarlo >> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com <mailto:laufer@globo.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I don´t know if the following example makes sense to this discussion. But it comes to my mind. >> >> Analog television has some different standards as, for example, PAL and NTSC, and they are not interoperable. >> >> I don´t know if, in this case, the term should be compatible. >> >> Best, >> Laufer >> >> 2014-08-08 11:43 GMT-03:00 Lee, Deirdre <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org <mailto:Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>>: >> >> 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 >> >> 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-MetadataStandardized >> >> ·R-LicenseMachineRead >> >> ·R-LicenseStandardized >> >> Possible resolutions for the UCR could be: >> >> a.Remove R–MetadataInteroperable and R-LicenseInteroperable from UCR because they’re 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 <mailto:deirdre.lee@deri.org> >> skype: deirdrelee >> >> twitter: @deirdrelee >> >> linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/ <http://ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> -- >> . . . .. . . >> . . . .. >> . .. . >> > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 11:23:08 UTC