Re: Best Practices Document - Comments

Hello Laufer,

Thanks for your comments! My comments are below.

2015-05-18 11:34 GMT-03:00 Laufer <laufer@globo.com>:

> Hello Bernadette,
>
> First of all, thank you for your great efforts in updating the BP
> document. Congratulations.
>

Thanks!


>
> I have a couple of comments.
>
> 1. I think it is necessary to have a BP "Provide structural metadata". It
> is very important to provide information that could help users to
> understand the Dataset structure. I am not saying that we would recommend
> any type of structure. But the publishers must clarify this information to
> the consumers. As in the other metadata´s BPs, this one could be provided
> in a human readable style or in a machine readable style. Could be in a
> free text or could be in a standard form as recommended by CSVW, for
> example.
>

I agree with you! Im gonna include a new BP in the metadata section
"Provide structural metadata".


>
> 2. In my opinion, "Provide data license information" is MUST.
>

There is ongoing discussion about the use of the RFC2119 keywords. If we're
gonna use these keywords, then I think we should evaluate each one of the
proposed BP.


>
> 3. We have a BP "Gather feedback from data consumers" where it is
> recommended to provide means for consumers to provide feedback. I think
> that we could recommend a BP "Provide feedback metadata" (I am not sure of
> this title). I think that to gather and to inform the feedback are
> different tasks and in this new BP we could link the BP to DUV, as the link
> to DQV in BP "Provide data quality information".
>

Yes, I like this idea. This is also a good way to link with DUV. In the
following, a suggestion for the BP (feel free to make changes):

BP: Provide feedback information
Feedback information should be described by metadata

Intended outcome:
It should be possible for humans to have access to information that
describes feedback on a dataset given by one or more data consumers.
It should be possible for machines to automatically process feedback
information about a dataset.

Possible Approach to Implementation
The machine readable version of the feedback metadata may be provided
according to the vocabulary that is being developed by the DWBP working
group , i.e., the Dataset Usage Vocabulary.

How to Test
Check that the metadata for the dataset itself includes feedback
information about the dataset.
Check if a computer application can automatically process feedback
information about the dataset.

Evidence
Relevant requirements: R-UsageFeedback


> 4. I want to ask why the term being used for information given for humans
> is "human understandable data" instead of "human readable data". Sorry
> about this comment (I know these discussions are long) but if we use
> machine readable I think we should use human readable. Or, if we decide to
> use human understandable we should also use machine understandable.
>

I changed the term because of the discussions that we had before about
this. For me its also ok to use machine readable (in fact, i prefer machine
readable). I'm gonna replace for machine readable and let's see if someone
else disagrees.

Cheers,
Bernadette



> Cheers,
> Laufer
>
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>



-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------