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

Re: [dwbp] BP Document ready to be reviewed

From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:55:24 -0200
Message-ID: <CA+pXJiioXu8kQZ2qHBHDihNG=tSMyL_FaYpoYOUOicDUs+b+og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br>, Bernadette Farias Loscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Cc: DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Thank you, Newton,

I don't know if it is time for that, but I have some comments after reading
the document:

In the paragraph

"This section presents best practices to help data publishers to face
challenges related to metadata. Initially, general best practices are
presented (Provide metadata documentation, Provide metadata for machines
and Use standard terms to define metadata) …"

there is a wrong reference: the name of BP "Provide metadata documentation"
was changed to "Document data".

In the text, there are references to BP "Provide metadata for machines".
But the name of the BP is "Use machine-readable formats to provide
metadata".

I have a question: Why BP5, BP6, BP7 and BP9 are specializations only of
the higher level "Provide metadata for machines"?

I think BPs also have to be provided for humans, so we also need
specializations of "Document data".

If we want to separate metadata for machines from metadata for humans we
also need some corresponding BPs to humans. Info about locale, licenses and
provenance are important to humans too. Provenance could be a simple
metadata as, for example, the name of an organization.

I think that Provide data license information", as a specialization of
"Document data", should be MUST. As a specialization of "Provide metadata
for machines", it could be SHOULD. One could publish the license for humans
but not for machines. License, for me, is a thing that the user must know
before reusing data. If data is published, data could be reused and, then,
it MUST have a license.

Best Regards,
Laufer




2015-02-16 16:29 GMT-02:00 Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br>:

> Hello all,
>
> As was agreed in our last meeting, we (editors) would finish some changes
> on the document [1] and “freeze” it to let the group review during this
> week.
>
> So, Bernadette, Carol and I have made some changes considering Phil and
> Annette’s suggestions [2], and for now, we’re done with the modifications.
>
> Cheers,
> Bernadette, Carol and Newton
>
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html
> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Feb/0084.html
>



-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2015 13:55:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 February 2015 13:55:52 UTC