- From: Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:00:52 -0200
- To: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Thank you, Phil! On 22/01/15 10:55, Phil Archer wrote: > I'm working through it now and yes, native speaker adjustment is part > of that. > > On 22/01/2015 12:42, Caroline Burle wrote: >> Hello! >> >> Annette raised the question that the document needs editing by a native >> English speaker, I understand Phil would do it, is that correct? >> >> Kind regards, >> Caroline >> >> On 21/01/15 18:31, Annette Greiner wrote: >>> I’m concerned that we are maybe getting out of scope with all the >>> detail about vocabularies. Creating new vocabularies is a different >>> task from publishing data that uses them, unless you are talking about >>> custom controlled vocabularies. Of course, publishers need to document >>> any custom controlled vocabularies they are using, but the best >>> practices we have seem to be written for people inventing large >>> standardized ones. Creating large standardized vocabularies is not >>> something we expect data publishers to do per se. In fact, the more we >>> emphasize information about creating vocabularies, the more we seem to >>> be suggesting that data publishers should be doing that regularly. I >>> would rather we de-emphasized creating new vocabularies and instead >>> emphasized re-using existing vocabularies. >>> >>> thus, I think we should reconsider whether each of the BPs in 7.4 is >>> in scope. BP12, BP13, and BP15 seem to me meant for people developing >>> large standard vocabularies. BP14 is just the reverse way of saying >>> the same thing as BP3. BP11 should only address custom controlled >>> vocabularies. (Publishers should not produce new—and possibly >>> conflicting--documentation for existing vocabularies; that task falls >>> to the creators of the vocabulary.) >>> >>> I also think BP3 should only be a SHOULD. I wouldn’t want someone to >>> avoid publishing because they felt they had to use standard >>> vocabularies to do that. Many datasets in the sciences are >>> overwhelmingly filled with data that has no standard vocabulary >>> (because the domain is too new). >>> >>> The document needs editing by a native English speaker. Is someone >>> already in line to do that? >>> -Annette >>> >>> -- >>> Annette Greiner >>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services >>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >>> 510-495-2935 >>> >>> On Jan 21, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio >>> <bfl@cin.ufpe.br> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Carlos, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your comments! >>>> >>>> When I said that the Document Metadata BP was redundant with the >>>> Document Vocabularies BP, I was considering the BP definition and not >>>> the real intention of the BP. >>>> >>>> If we consider the meaning that "BP4 is about documenting what >>>> metadata terms (being reused or ad-hoc) are you finally using", then >>>> Document Metadata is not redundant with Document Vocabularies BP. >>>> >>>> In this case, it should be more clear what is the real meaning of >>>> "documenting". If documenting means to "provide a document that >>>> describe the metadata", then I think that BP on human vs. machine >>>> readable metadata covers this requirement. On the other hand, if >>>> documenting metadata concerns to maintain a documentation for >>>> metadata, then maybe we should have a different BP. In this case, >>>> there will be three BP: >>>> >>>> 1. Document metadata BP: data publishers SHOULD maintain a >>>> documentation of the metadata that describe your data. This BP >>>> concerns something that has to be done by the data consumer, but this >>>> action doesn't have a direct impact on data consumers. There is >>>> another BP (Provide metadata) to say that this documentation should be >>>> provided to data consumers. This BP should be more general than the >>>> Document Vocabularies BP. The metadata documentation should just tell >>>> the vocabularies that are used, instead of providing a complete >>>> documentation for vocabularies. >>>> >>>> 2. Provide metadata for both human and machines BP: data publishers >>>> SHOULD document metadata in such a way that both humans and machines >>>> can read. This BP complements the previous one because it says how >>>> metadata should be documented. >>>> >>>> 3. Provide metadata BP: data publishers SHOULD provide metadata >>>> documentation to data consumers. When you have the documentation, give >>>> it to the data consumers. >>>> >>>> Does it make sense for you? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Bernadette >>>> >>>> >>>> 2015-01-20 21:51 GMT-03:00 Laufer <laufer@globo.com>: >>>>> Hi, Carlos, >>>>> >>>>>> BP4 is about documenting what metadata terms are you finally using >>>>> Terms are parts of a vocabulary. >>>>> >>>>> And we will have a whole section about vocabularies. >>>>> >>>>> Metadata is documenting data. Then, metadata should be documented. >>>>> These >>>>> documents about metadata are metadata of metadata. We should take >>>>> care about >>>>> an infinite chain. >>>>> >>>>> If we talk about documents for machines, we are talking about >>>>> vocabularies. >>>>> And section 7. >>>>> 4 will take care of this. >>>>> >>>>> If we are talking about humans, metadata is the documentation. Have a >>>>> documentation about metadata is mandatory. If metadata does not >>>>> have a >>>>> documentation, it does not have a meaning. For example, If one says >>>>> that the >>>>> dataset has a GNU license, how this can be understood by a human if >>>>> GNU is >>>>> not documented? The meaning is the documentation and must exist if >>>>> someone >>>>> decides to refer to it. >>>>> >>>>> In respect to code lists, (maybe this is not the formal definition) >>>>> I think >>>>> they are a kind of type, or even a kind of vocabulary. Again, I think >>>>> section 7.4 is a better candidate to talk about this. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Laufer >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Em terça-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2015, Carlos Iglesias >>>>> <contact@carlosiglesias.es> escreveu: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here goes my view on this: >>>>>> >>>>>> - I tend to disagree on (former) BP4 being derived from BP1+2+3 >>>>>> >>>>>> BP1 is on metadata availability (provide metadata) >>>>>> BP2 is on human vs. machine readable metadata (how to present >>>>>> metadata) >>>>>> BP3 is reusing generic standard metadata terms when possible >>>>>> (i.e. dc, >>>>>> foaf and the like) >>>>>> BP4 is about documenting what metadata terms (being reused or >>>>>> ad-hoc) are >>>>>> you finally using >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see overlap between any of the above. >>>>>> >>>>>> - WRT BP11 Document vocabularies >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see any overlap with (fomer) BP4 either as: >>>>>> >>>>>> BP4 is about documenting what metadata terms are you finally using >>>>>> BP11 is about documenting your data (not metadata) models (or >>>>>> "vocabularies") in the case you are developing new ones. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Finally WRT Annette's comments I think there is a missing point >>>>>> here: >>>>>> BPXX Document your data >>>>>> >>>>>> This is about the "data codebooks" that should be accompanying our >>>>>> data as >>>>>> additional documentation but unfortunately are rarely available >>>>>> making >>>>>> working with 3rd party data a pain. This "codebooks" usually >>>>>> document all >>>>>> the information that Annette is refereeing to in her message and >>>>>> more. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> CI. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20 January 2015 at 21:00, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Here are a few things that come to mind as needing to be >>>>>>> documented in >>>>>>> metadata. >>>>>>> Units, for any measure that is not unitless. >>>>>>> For responses to a survey question, the question itself and how it >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> coded. (This is where code lists come in.) >>>>>>> Meaning of nulls, zeroes, NA, etc. >>>>>>> language, locale (we have this one covered elsewhere, but >>>>>>> probably it >>>>>>> should be included under the more general BP.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the metadata information right now is a little bit >>>>>>> redundant. >>>>>>> Documenting metadata is really the same as providing metadata. >>>>>>> When we have >>>>>>> generalized the BP about documenting, it will be even more like >>>>>>> the one >>>>>>> about providing metadata. In both cases, we are talking about >>>>>>> using good >>>>>>> metadata to describe the data and making it available to data >>>>>>> consumers. >>>>>>> -Annette >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Annette Greiner >>>>>>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services >>>>>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >>>>>>> 510-495-2935 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 5:16 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio >>>>>>> <bfl@cin.ufpe.br> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Document metadata BP should be rewritten to become more >>>>>>>> general, >>>>>>>> i.e., not just vocabularies should be documented. In this case, >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> else should be documented when talking about metadata? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> Carlos Iglesias. >>>>>> Internet & Web Consultant. >>>>>> +34 687 917 759 >>>>>> contact@carlosiglesias.es >>>>>> @carlosiglesias >>>>>> http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> . . . .. . . >>>>> . . . .. >>>>> . .. . >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio >>>> Centro de Informática >>>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 13:01:21 UTC