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

Re: Comments on Data on the Web Best Practices: BP-1 & BP-2

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:34:40 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1Pzy1Q7-vJQ7jU1hFa1OLX_Zj6B6GtSs7v-mGCutephiiKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Cc: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, SDW WG <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Dear Andrea,

Thanks a lot for your comments on the FPWD of the DWBP document! After
gathering some feedback from the community some changes were made and we're
planning to publish a 2nd draft.

The current version of the DWBP document is available on github [1] and it
will be great to have your feedback about the changes made on the metadata
section [2]. Note that now there are specific sections for Data Licenses,
Data Provenance, Data Versioning and Data Quality.

Kind regards,
Bernadette

[1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html
[2] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#metadata

2015-03-19 18:12 GMT-03:00 Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>:

> Thanks a lot for your reply, Bernadette.
>
> I'm looking forward to reading the revised version of the BPs.
>
> Best,
>
> Andrea
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> <bfl@cin.ufpe.br> wrote:
> > Dear Andrea,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your comments on the DWBP document!  We are
> planning
> > to restructure the section of best practices for metadata and your
> comments
> > will be very useful. Please see my comments inline.
> >
> >>
> >> 1. BP-1 ("Document data") seems to mix two different requirements:
> >> (a) publishing data documentation (metadata)
> >> (b) publishing metadata in human-readable formats
> >> Is this correct?
> >> In such a case, shouldn't these be rather addressed by two different
> >> BPs? The requirement of publishing metadata shouldn't necessarily
> >> address *how* this is done. This would also be inconsistent with the
> >> fact that the requirement about publishing metadata in
> >> machine-readable formats is addressed by a specific BP (BP-2).
> >
> >
> > Yes, it seems that BP1 is not clear. Originally, we had two distinct BP:
> > Provide metadata and Provide metadata for humas and machines. Then, we
> > decided to remove the general BP Provide Metadata and to keep one BP for
> > metadata for humans and another one for BP for machines. We're gonna
> review
> > this structure.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. BP-2 ("Use machine-readable formats to provide metadata"), section
> >> "Intended outcome":
> >> "It should be possible for computer applications, notably search
> >> tools, to locate and process the metadata easily, which makes it human
> >> readable metadata, machine readability metadata."
> >> (a) It is unclear why this "makes it human readable metadata".
> >> (b) There's probably a typo in "[... ] machine readability metadata" -
> >> shouldn't this rather be "[...] machine readable metadata"?
> >
> >
> > Yes, this is not correct! We're gonna correct this sentence.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 3. BP-2 makes the point about the use of machine-readable formats for
> >> data discovery via software agents, including search engines. It
> >> points also to specific machine-readable metadata serialisations that
> >> can be embedded in human-readable metadata, and that are currently
> >> used by search engines to optimise discovery. However, I have two
> >> questions on this:
> >> (a) Shouldn't be a requirement for human-readable metadata to *always*
> >> embed their machine-readable version? This also when machine-readable
> >> metadata are available separately. I see a couple of use cases for
> >> this - e.g., optimising discovery via search engines, existing browser
> >> plug-ins able to read RDFa, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > BP2 says that "Metadata in machine-readable formats must be published
> > together with the data". In a way, it means that machine-readable version
> > must always be available, but there is no relation with the
> human-readable
> > version.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> (b) Do you think that the requirement of being "discoverable" by Web
> >> search tools should be extended to data? BP-12 partially address this,
> >> but not explicitly. I'm asking since this issue may be relevant to the
> >> SDW WG - see [2].
> >
> >
> > Again, I think the BP is not clear. The idea is that metadata may be
> used to
> > make data discoverable, i.e., it should be easy to discover the data and
> not
> > the metadata. In this sense, BP4 (Provide discovery metadata) complements
> > BP2.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Andrea
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bernadette
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ----
> >> [1]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/F2f_Barcelona
> >>
> >> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Requirements#Content_need_to_be_crawlable.2C_then_able_to_ask_search_engine_or_other_service
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
> >> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
> >> European Commission DG JRC
> >> Institute for Environment & Sustainability
> >> Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
> >> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
> >> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
> >>
> >> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
> >>
> >> ----
> >> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
> >> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
> >> position of the European Commission.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> > Centro de Informática
> > Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
> European Commission DG JRC
> Institute for Environment & Sustainability
> Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>
> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>
> ----
> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
> position of the European Commission.
>



-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2015 13:35:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 11 June 2015 13:35:33 UTC