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

Re: Working on FPWD, more to do

From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 05:11:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMFz4jiXvJePTSRAETe3r9aMFoZJ+qUCJV0EAj82FbnhUtkATg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Cc: Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>, Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
I really like the idea of the maturity model Steve shared, it would be nice
to categorize BPs as Annette and Bernadette have shared.  In the interest
of getting this draft DWBP document out the door, if this is the direction
we are heading would it be reasonable to put a footnote that indicates some
general information about our thoughts about a future maturity
model/categorization system in the draft DWBP?

Based on Steve's experience working out a maturity model may take some
time.  A footnote for this draft would allow us as a working group to work
out the details of what we'd ultimately like to do.

Eric S



On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I like the idea of having different levels of maturity and Chistophe's
> idea about having sites implementing DWBP practices.
>
> Iagree  with Makx that "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." In this case, I think we don't need to use the
> RFC terms.
>
> I am reviewing the document again and I saw that some BP are really
> general and others are more specific (and maybe more diffcult to
> implement). As Annette, I was thinking about using stars to classify BP,
> however instead of stars we can use other type of classification. General
> BP that are more simple and contribute less for data reuse could be
> classified as level 1 and BP that may contribute more for data reuse are
> level 2, for example:
>
> BP Provide data documentation - level 1
> BP Provide data documentation in multiple languages - level 2
> BP Use standardized terms to define metadata - level 2
>
> BP Provide data in a machine-readable format - level 1
> BP Provide data in multiple machine-readable format - level 2
>
> Then, maturity levels can be measured according to the levels of BP that
> were implemented. For example: if you implement all BPof level 1 than you
> are in the first level of maturity (ex: GOOD). A good exercise could be to
> specify what is expected in each one of the maturity levels.
>
> Cheers,
> Bernadette
>
>
> 2015-02-05 8:45 GMT-03:00 Christophe Guéret <
> christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>:
>
> 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/>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 13:11:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 February 2015 13:11:41 UTC