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

Re: Review of BP on data re-use

From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:25:35 -0300
To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <018ffae027c604b32e8b8ce27588935b@globo.com>

Hi All, 

I do not agree with a new section and a new BP about data reuse. 

I think that the aspects of reuse that are mentioned in the new BP are
covered by the BPs in our list: license, provenance and feedback. 

If someone wants to use, or reuse, data she has to think about theses
aspects and has to do what our BPs recommend. 

If the group think that these aspects should be highlighted, I think
that we can include these information in the original BPs. 

If we will talk about BPs for reuse we will need to see all the other
aspects of publications, as for example, how versioning will be treated,
how sensitive data will be treated, how the use of new vocabularies will
be compatible with the vocabularies used in the data reused, and so on. 

I do not like the idea that reuse is not use. I think that in some sense
we are thinking that the only one that uses data is the final user. But
I think that the final user do not uses data. She asks a question that
someone that uses data will try to answer. 

All of our BPs include the benefit of Reuse. We do not even talk about
the benefit of Use. 

For me, our BPs cover the publishing of data that will be used. Or
reused, as you wish. I do not think we have to split in different BPs. 

Cheers, Laufer 


. . . .. . . 
. . . ..
. .. . 

Em 22/03/2016 12:50, Bernadette Farias Lóscio escreveu: 

> Hi all,
> Considering that tomorrow we need to vote to include or not the BP about Data Re-use [1] on the BP document, I'd like to make some considerations.
> I agree with Antoine that "a lot of the aspects of this BP are non-technical, so I'm not 100% sure it's in scope." However, I also like the idea of the BP and I'd like to make a proposal.
> In my opinion, the Data Reuse BP should be splitted in two different BP: one for data licenses and another one for Citation and Feedback. We already have a section about data licenses, so I think It would be better to create a new BP considering the aspects mentioned by Antoine and Annette. If reusing is also a way of publishing data, then I think it won't be a problem. 
> The second BP will focus on providing citation and feedback. I also believe that are other aspects that should be considered. Annette's proposal mentions that publishers "should be made aware of any known problems with the data". However, feedback can be used to provide other informations about the dataset and not just to provide feedback about the problems. It is also really important to mention the Dataset Usage Vocabulary and to provide examples based on our own vocabulary.
> In this case, we can also change the title of the section Feedback to be something like Feedback and Citation.
> In summary, my proposal is:
> - Split Data Reuse BP in two BP:
> BP: Follow licensing constraints to be included in the Data Licenses Section BP: Cite the original dataset and give feedback (this could also be splitted in two other BP: i) BP Cite the original dataset and ii) Give feedback )
> - Rename Feedback Section to Feedback and Citation.
> Doing this, we also avoid the creation of a new section. Again, if reusing as way of publishing then I dont think that we should have a new section for this subject. 
> kind regards, Berna
> [1] http://agreiner.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#Re-use [1] 
> 2016-03-16 9:19 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:
> Hi everyone,
> I've just received the email with the editors asking for this:
> 2. To review the Best Practice: Reuse vocabularies [3] , which will be voted next Wednesday. 
> This is excellent timing, I've just read it while catching up with the minutes of yesterday's session ;-)
> My feedback will be quick though (not much time to write a clean text!):
> 1. a lot of the aspects of this BP are non-technical, so I'm not 100% sure it's in scope. But there are some technical aspects involved, and see point #2.
> 2. I do like the BP a lot. This makes a lot of sense
> 3. my strong recommendation about licensing would be that re-users should make sure that any license or terms of use 'travels' with the data. If reusers do something with the data, they make sure it's compatible with the license and terms of use. This includes (re-)publishing of data, or of derived data when applicable. Especially re-users of derived or re-published data must be aware of the original license and terms of use
> 4. my organization (Europeana) has made terms of use that could be used as example. Our data is CC0, so there's no license whatsoever. But because attribution and provenance matter in our sector (culture) we wanted to encourage people to be 'respectful'.
> It's at http://www.europeana.eu/portal/rights/metadata.html [2]
> I think it exemplifies quite a lot the aspects of Annette's BP proposal.
> 5. the Europeana TOU include one technical aspect that could be strenghtened in the BP, imhp. Re-users should make sure they keep their data (or application) synchronization with the most up-to-date status of the original source. If someone builds and keeps something on the basis of old data, and let their own re-users think the original data source is responsible for problems of outdated data, this is not fair for the original data publisher.
> Cheers,
> Antoine
> [3] http://agreiner.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#Re-use [1]


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

[1] http://agreiner.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#Re-use
[2] http://www.europeana.eu/portal/rights/metadata.html
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2016 16:26:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 16:26:08 UTC