The BP Document

Hi all,
First, I would like to congratulate people that worked on the BP 
document. It's great how we are in a progress curve o/

In general, I agree that we have many issues and that we should flag the 
BP as Phil suggested to publish the document now.

I also agree that we are too connected with bp for the 5 stars, as some 
of us raised at previous emails. I would specially comment the aspect 
that Annette destaca about the data cycle. In the beginning of the group 
we agree to use it as a resource for better understand the ecosystem, 
but given the discussions about who is the audience of this document, I 
really think that we don't have to mention the data cycle as cited on 
the document because we (kind of) simplified it establishing your target 
audience as

publishers
data consumers (although I'm not totally satisfied with this terminology 
yet)

Furthermore, I still feel that we can work towards other and different 
use cases that evolves more practices around big data - maybe even with 
some intersection with the 2 new WG on data activity: Web of Thing 
Interest Group or the Spatial Data WG.

In the end of the last year, Christine Runnegar was in Brazil to the 
Privacy and Secutiry Week at Nic.br and CGI.br and we briefly talked to 
her about possibilities of exchanging ideas about privacy between the 2 
groups, since "Data on the Web" is a vast theme and has a myriad of 
intersections with other areas, maybe for the second year of the group 
we could seek for more variety in our use cases and examples with other 
W3C groups.

Finally, I miss testing or using some of these best practices to 
validade what we are recommending. Maybe we can think on a task force as 
a parallel effort to make some tests and examples to validade the best 
practice.

How does it sound to the WG?

Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 14:14:39 UTC