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

Re: updates to BP doc

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:48:32 +0100
Message-ID: <56E74DD0.8060400@few.vu.nl>
To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Annette, all,

I've read the enrichment sections and I find them great, too!

Some quite reaction:

On 3/14/16 11:46 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
> Phil's suggestion sounds wise, and I think we should add it at the end of the Data Enrichment introduction. I would suggest that his line be slightly amended to explain what is out of scope. I don't think we want to say data enrichment itself is out of scope, because we are offering BPs about it.
> "Data enrichment is a complex topic in its own right, and details of how to perform it are beyond the scope of this document."


> Re changing the subtitle for 33, that re-introduces a problem that I realized while writing the BPs. We were mentioning enrichment as a way of adding metadata to a dataset. That is not actually what data enrichment accomplishes. Metadata can be extracted from a document corpus, but it is metadata for the documents that make it up, which becomes the actual data in a dataset about the documents. Metadata for the dataset as a whole is not something data enrichment is generally used for. I looked at multiple references about data enrichment, including the InWeb one, and none of them talks about generating metadata for the dataset itself. The InWeb document doesn't even mention the word metadata. Besides, metadata is data anyway.

There are cases where enrichment could create metadata, for instance a subject classification that applies to dataset as a whole. But for the sake of this subtitle, I agree mentioning 'data' only should be enough.


Received on Monday, 14 March 2016 23:49:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 14 March 2016 23:49:03 UTC