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

Fwd: Re: Working on FPWD, more to do

From: Deirdre Lee <deirdre@derilinx.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:17:05 +0000
Message-ID: <54D3A591.2090107@derilinx.com>
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org

Hi all,

Good discussion...and I'm wondering if we've come back to the link with 
the quality vocabulary..

Adding a maturity model approach to BPs is like adding another dimension 
- a quality dimension.

Like the example Makx described with metadata having different levels 
and what is possible with each level.

Could these levels be cross-referenced with a quality vocabulary?

I'd also like to draw your attention to the Open Data Maturity Model 
that Leigh Dodds is working on:
http://theodi.org/blog/developing-an-open-data-maturity-model

Cheers,
Deirdre

On 05/02/2015 13:11, Eric Stephan wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://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 <tel:%2B31%280%296%2014576494>
>         christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl
>         <mailto:christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
>
>         *Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)*
>
>         DANS bevordert duurzame toegang tot digitale
>         onderzoeksgegevens. Kijk op www.dans.knaw.nl
>         <http://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 <mailto:info@dans.kn> | www.dans.knaw.nl
>
>
>         *Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!*
>         http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/
>
>         *e-Humanities Group (KNAW)*
>         eHumanities <http://www.ehumanities.nl/>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>     Centro de Informática
>     Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

-- 
----------------------------------------
Deirdre Lee, Director
Derilinx - Linked & Open Data Solutions
  
Web:www.derilinx.com
Email:deirdre@derilinx.com
Tel:      +353 (0)1 254 4316
Mob:      +353 (0)87 417 2318
Linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/
Twitter:  @derilinx
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 17:57:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 February 2015 17:57:43 UTC