W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: New BP (?) - Using standards for distributing datasets for specific domains or applications

From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:36:47 -0800
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56DA0DFF.8010700@lbl.gov>
Hi Antoine,
Thanks for the reply. I wasn't referring to your email, though. Phil had 
said something on the call about formats being out of scope. Perhaps he 
can clarify.

On 3/4/16 2:27 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Annette,
> In case you're refering to my email, sorry, I was awfully unclear. I 
> was working on fitting GTFS material into the vocabulary BPs when I 
> wrote it, following the discussion we had during the call. It would be 
> confusing to talk about formats (files and syntaxes) in these 
> vocabulary BPs. Formats sit elsewhere.
> If anyone else want to tackle the format aspect in a different BP, I 
> have no strong objection, even though I feel we (at least I!) have 
> less to say there.
> Antoine
> On 3/4/16 6:40 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
>> # This seems as much in scope as standard vocabularies. What is the 
>> argument for considering formats out of scope? Item 2 in our mission 
>> is to provide *guidance to publishers* that will improve consistency 
>> in the way data is managed, thus promoting the re-use of data;
>> If we can suggest that they use standardized data models and formats, 
>> we do exactly that. If some of us feel that this is too much like 
>> telling people how to build their dataset, I would argue that we are 
>> doing the same thing by telling them what terms to use. Neither thing 
>> is constrained to the job of publishing the data on the web, but both 
>> are important for that and are good promoters of reuse.
>> -Annette
>> On 3/4/16 7:44 AM, Laufer wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> I do not know if this should be a new BP, if it could be 
>>> incorporated to the BP about standardized terms, or should be 
>>> thought as an extension included in a BP document of another group. 
>>> Or none of them.
>>> The inspiration came from GTFS 
>>> (https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs/), a standard way of 
>>> defining timetables.
>>> Here are some extractions from the GTFS site:
>>> “The General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) defines a common 
>>> format for public transportation schedules and associated geographic 
>>> information. GTFS "feeds" allow public transit agencies to publish 
>>> their transit data and developers to write applications that consume 
>>> that data in an interoperable way.”
>>> “A GTFS feed is composed of a series of text (csv) files collected 
>>> in a ZIP file. Each file models a particular aspect of transit 
>>> information: stops, routes, trips, and other schedule data. A 
>>> transit agency can produce a GTFS feed to share their public transit 
>>> information with developers, who write tools that consume GTFS feeds 
>>> to incorporate public transit information into their applications. 
>>> GTFS can be used to power trip planners, time table publishers, and 
>>> a variety of applications, too diverse to list here, that use public 
>>> transit information in some way.”
>>> It is more than the vocabulary used. It is also a specific way of 
>>> distributing the dataset. Could we call this a kind of standard 
>>> dataset type?
>>> Does it makes sense?
>>> Cheers, Laufer
>>> -- 
>>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>>> .        .   . ..
>>> .     ..       .
>> -- 
>> Annette Greiner
>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Friday, 4 March 2016 22:37:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 4 March 2016 22:37:20 UTC