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

Re: Working on FPWD, more to do

From: Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 12:45:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CABP9CAHquu4VgJO5JwYteeHpkstf5qZc_xvWzJisS-D-_fxLqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
CC: DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,

+1 ! Would it be also a good/doable idea to implement to sites which
implements the BPs ?
That could be another indication of their maturity / success.
We could maybe issue a call for implementation to gather the names ?

Christophe


On 5 February 2015 at 12:37, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:

> 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]
>> *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.
>>
>>
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>



-- 
Onderzoeker
+31(0)6 14576494
christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl

*Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)*

DANS bevordert duurzame toegang tot digitale onderzoeksgegevens. Kijk op
www.dans.knaw.nl voor meer informatie. DANS is een instituut van KNAW en
NWO.


Let op, per 1 januari hebben we een nieuw adres:

DANS | Anna van Saksenlaan 51 | 2593 HW Den Haag | Postbus 93067 | 2509 AB
Den Haag | +31 70 349 44 50 | info@dans.knaw.nl <info@dans.kn> |
www.dans.knaw.nl


*Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!*
http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/

*e-Humanities Group (KNAW)*
[image: eHumanities] <http://www.ehumanities.nl/>
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 11:46:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 February 2015 11:46:40 UTC