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

Re: comments on Data on the Web Best Practices

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 18:41:03 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1Pzy8CshhZ5r5fHhE1X-GxA8hVmhQBMeLe40vvCB+7v=Sgg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maurino Andrea <maurino@disco.unimib.it>
Cc: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Dear Andrea,

Thanks a lot for your message!

kind regards,
Bernadette

2015-06-19 7:38 GMT-03:00 Maurino Andrea <maurino@disco.unimib.it>:

>  Dear Bernadette, sorry for my late reply, i read the new draft  and, to
> me, it is a significant improvement wrt the first version
>
>  with best regards
> Andrea Maurino
>
>
>
>  Il giorno 17/giu/2015, alle ore 23:57, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <
> bfl@cin.ufpe.br> ha scritto:
>
>  Dear Andrea,
>
>  As mentioned in my last message [1], we're planning to publish the 2nd
> draft of the DWBP document and it is really important to know if you agree
> with our comments about your feedback on the FPWD of DWBP document.
>
>  If possible, please let us know if you agree with our comments no later
> than next Friday.
>
>  Thank you!
>  Bernadette
>
>  [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jun/0022.html
>
>
> 2015-06-11 11:48 GMT-03:00 Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>:
>
>> Dear Andrea Maurino,
>>
>>  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 [1].
>>
>>  In the following, you can find some comments about your feedback on the
>> FPWD.
>>
>>>  Bp3  Use standard terms to define metadata
>>>
>>> Issue 6: IMHO there is the need that at least a very well defined subset
>>> of metadata terms MUST be described by means of standard terms and
>>> consequently if they must be expressed with well-known RDF vocabulary.
>>> Example of such mandatory list of metadata terms could include the owner,
>>> the type of license associated to the data, and date of last modification.
>>>
>>  Changes were made on the metadata section and specific vocabularies are
>> mentioned in the Possible Approach to Implementation section [2].
>>
>>>  Best Practice 6: Provide data license information
>>>
>>> According to the experience of Comsode project  license is a mandatory
>>> requirement for publishing data on the web due to the fact without a
>>> license there is no clear indication about the limits (if any) of usability
>>> of such data and this lack significantly reduce the possibility to have a
>>> real web of data. It is possible to suggest that in case someone publishes
>>> data without license this will imply that such data can be consumed for
>>> free by both humans and machines but they cannot be modified, reused an so
>>> on without an explicit acceptation of the data owner.
>>>
>>  I am not sure if we can make such suggestion because this may depend
>> from the policies of the organization. I think we can only suggest that
>> data license information should be available.
>>
>>>  Best Practice 8: Provide data quality information
>>>
>>> Issue 7 I suggest to draw some strategies related to how attach quality
>>> information. In some case such information are defined inside data (for
>>> example when the time of last modification of an item is part of the
>>> dataset itself), in other situations there are the need to express quality
>>> dimensions related to schema description only (e.g. conciseness of schema)
>>> , or  related to the dataset. I also suggest (but it is clear that I'm a
>>> little biased on such topic :) ) to better describe how to describe the
>>> quality information (including quality dimensions, adopted quality metric,
>>> and quality value see for example as starting point [1])
>>>
>>  Thanks a lot for your suggestions, but I suggest to keep this
>> discussion for the Data Quality Vocabulary document [3].
>>
>>>  Best Practice 9: Provide versioning information
>>>
>>>  This is a crucial problem in particular in the case of linked data due
>>> to possible impact wrt. existing interlinked resources. Some good practice
>>> could be discussed
>>>
>>  In the current version of the document there is a section for Data
>> Versioning [4] and two BP(Provide versioning information and Provide
>> version history) are proposed.
>>
>>   Best Practice 20: Preserve people's right to privacy
>>>
>>> This a big issue because if it is correct to protect the people's right
>>> to privacy there is also the "right to know" about activities realized by
>>> public administrations (for example legal sentences); In Italy, just as an
>>> example,  personal information including salary related to person working
>>> in Public administration at higher level or consultants paid with public
>>> money must to be released as open data due to Italy transparency decree for
>>> 5 years (after such period there is "the right to be forgotten" that many
>>> of you known related to the google vs European Union case).
>>>
>>> Thus I suggest to change the best practice in " Data publishers should
>>> preserve the privacy of individuals according to the law of the country of
>>> data owner ".
>>>
>>  Some actions were taken to change BP for Sensistive Data [5]. Changes
>> will be made in the next version.
>>
>>   Best Practice 25: Provide data up to date
>>>
>>> Please consider that this BP is strictly related to the data quality bp
>>> due to the fact the way in which are calculated temporal-related  quality
>>> dimensions  and such two BP must be correlated and coherent.
>>>
>> This BP concerns how to keep data up to date instead of providing
>> information if data is being updated as expected. I think that the
>> discussion about data quality assessment is in the scope of the Data
>> Quality Vocabulary [3].
>>
>>  kind regards,
>> Bernadette
>>
>> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html
>> [2] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#metadata
>>  [3] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html
>> [4] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning
>> [5] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#sensitive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrea  Maurino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1184/ldow2014_paper_09.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>> Centro de Informática
>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
>
>  --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>


-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 22 June 2015 21:41:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 21:41:53 UTC