W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > February 2015

Re: Working on FPWD, more to do

From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:37:47 -0200
Message-ID: <CA+pXJihzNChXLAXX6+sHQgq7pw+FvNY72pdJF6nwnph-zxwN+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,

I like the idea of listing costs and benefits.

In respect to the term Best Practice, for me is a practice that is best for
the consumer: a developer or a final user.

A publisher can publish data the way she wants. It is the Web. But I think
we want practices that we call Best because they create an environment with
a commom understanding (and some commitments), with a semantic that could
create an environment where data could be consumed in an easy way, by
humans and machines (humans, called developers).

Best,
Laufer

Em quinta-feira, 5 de fevereiro de 2015, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
escreveu:

> I also like Steve’s approach, but it brings me back to an earlier
> question: What is **best** practice?
>
>
>
> In a way, a maturity model describes what is good, better, best practice
> as you move up the ladder. But how does someone (us in this case) determine
> what is good, better, best?
>
>
>
> As far as I can see, we try to define best practice based on our personal
> opinions – of course backed by our individual and collective knowledge and
> experience – but we don’t seem to consider any type of metrics or arguments
> that justify why something is better practice than something else.
>
>
>
> I posed that question earlier on BP#1
> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#metadata. I think that a statement like
> “in an open information space, metadata is essential” is an opinion, but
> one that needs to be qualified, especially because you could argue that in
> the current Web environment this has been demonstrated **not** to be
> true. Data can be discovered and re-used even without metadata as long as
> it is harvested by a search engine; actually, in the current environment of
> the open Web, a landing page with good SEO is probably a better way of
> creating high visibility than DCAT metadata.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, if you want to build a catalogue of datasets like
> http://datahub.io/, or want your datasets to be listed on such a portal,
> then of course metadata is the way to go to enable harvesting.
>
>
>
> So, thinking further on Steve’s maturity model, we could have levels like:
>
>
>
> Put your data on the Web and
>
>
>
> 0.       Do not provide any information about your data. If you don’t,
> your data can only be found by people who know about it, so you don’t
> encourage wide re-use – NOT SO GOOD (but of course, someone might have good
> reasons to keep their data out of the spotlight)
>
> 1.       Provide a landing page. This allows the information to be picked
> up by search engines. If you’re doing some smart SEO in addition, it will
> make your data will make it visible, facilitating more re-use – BETTER
>
> 2.       Provide metadata that describes the data. This may increase
> visibility on search engines (e.g. using schema.org) but it is really
> essential if you want your data to be visible on portals like the DataHub;
> these portal services require metadata to be available for harvesting –
> BETTER
>
> 3.       Provide both a landing page and standardised metadata: this
> makes your data visible through search engines and allows your data to be
> included in data portals which maximises visibility and re-use – BEST
>
>
>
> Such a ladder gives advice on what to do and why: what happens if you do
> and what happens if you don’t.
>
>
>
> In that way, we don’t tell people what they MUST or SHOULD do, we provide
> advice that they can follow or not, depending on their objectives,
> resources etc.
>
>
>
> Makx.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Steven Adler [mailto:adler1@us.ibm.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','adler1@us.ibm.com');>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 04, 2015 9:18 PM
> *To:* Eric
> *Cc:* Annette Greiner; Bernadette Farias Lóscio; Phil Archer; Public DWBP
> WG
> *Subject:* Re: Working on FPWD, more to do
>
>
>
> I feel a little nervous about weighing in here but here goes.  I am OK
> with removing normative statements in this version of the BP document and I
> appreciate the desire to describe rather than prescribe practices.  But I
> also feel that we need to get more specific about our descriptions in
> future versions of the document.  An approach we can take in that regards
> is to develop our descriptions in a Maturity Model framework, which plots
> different levels of observed behaviors across increasing levels of
> maturity, allow the readers to discover for themselves how their own
> practices compare to other levels of maturity and decide where they are and
> what they want to achieve.
>
>

-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 11:38:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 February 2015 11:38:20 UTC