- From: Deirdre Lee <deirdre@derilinx.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:15:28 +0000
- To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <56F27AD0.4040809@derilinx.com>
Hi, I'm afraid I won't be on the call today, but in terms of BP on re-use: Overall, I don't think there should be a new section for reuse. The only way this BP makes sense to me, is if it is presented in the sense of published data being part of a wider data lifecycle, publish-use-republish-reuse etc. This may fit into data enrichment section: 'Data enrichment refers to a set of processes that can be used to enhance, refine or otherwise improve raw or previously processed data.' My suggestion: If we keep the BP, it should sit in the data enrichment section, and content updated to emphasise data lifecycle. I'm sure it'll be an interesting call today! Cheers, Derdre On 22/03/2016 22:06, Annette Greiner wrote: > Responding to some of the comments on the data reuse BP. > > Re the ideas from Europeana, the appropriateness of making sure that > the license travels with the data depends on the license itself. Some > specify that derivative works follow the same license or a compatible > license. Getting that right is part of following the license > requirements. I think Antoine's thought about keeping the data up to > date is a good one, though that's covered in the original BP about > data-up-to-date, since we say to update data when the source is > updated. A small reminder in the reuse BP would seem fitting. The > Europeana page also mentions the case where the reuser changes > something about the data, saying that one should mention what was > changed. I think that would be another idea worth mentioning. > > Re whether it's in scope, this goes back to the original discussion > about who our audience is. I would never have argued that our audience > was specifically publishers if I didn't also believe that re-users, or > re-publishers, are part of that group. Our charter charges us with > "facilitating better communication between developers and publishers." > We've recognized that developers are publishers, too, but we haven't > addressed the original issue, which is really poor communication > between original publishers and re-publishers. We haven't addressed > anything that applies particularly to the challenge of re-publishing. > In this BP, we finally do that. I feel that, if we were to leave it > out, the list of BPs could leave publishers who are not also > re-publishers feeling that they are the only ones tasked with > improving their behavior. Communication is a two-way street, and I > think addressing re-publishers is something we need to do to maintain > balance. Having thought about this, I would not be comfortable > publishing a BP list without these ideas in it. I am far, far less > concerned about issues of scope than issues of balance and fairness, > but I think this BP is firmly in scope and necessary. > > Re the idea that we should split it into 2 BPs. The two-way split > doesn't strike me as logical, because citing and providing feedback > are two completely different tasks. I could possibly imagine splitting > it into three BPs, as there are three components to reusing > respectfully (at least currently). However, I'm not sure what we gain > by splitting them up and putting them into other sections. That makes > it difficult for users to find advice on what to do when they are > reusing someone else's data. We could possibly split them into three > and have all three in a new section, but I'm not sure there are really > three unique BPs-worth of things to say about them. Either way, this > is really a new challenge: how to reuse with consideration for the > original publisher, and worthy of a new section. > > It's an interesting idea to put the ideas about reuse into existing > BPs, but I think that would force us to try and stuff two different > ideas into each BP. We would have to find a partner BP for each one > and rewrite. Supposing we felt it was worth that effort, we would end > up with BPs that are trying awkwardly to encompass two different > ideas. Keeping them separate helps understanding and keeps the BPs > from becoming overloaded. It is one task to provide a channel for > communication; it is quite another to use it, and it's still another > to cite a source. Similarly, it is one task to provide a license; it > is quite another to follow it. > -Annette > > On 3/22/16 9:25 AM, Laufer wrote: >> >> 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 >> Bes >> --- >> >> . . . .. . . >> . . . .. >> . .. . >> >> 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 >>> >>> 2016-03-16 9:19 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl >>> <mailto: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 >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio >>> Centro de Informática >>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > Annette Greiner > NERSC Data and Analytics Services > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory > -- ------------------------------------ Deirdre Lee, CEO & Founder Derilinx - Linked & Open Data Solutions Web: www.derilinx.com Email: deirdre@derilinx.com Address: 11/12 Baggot Court, Dublin 2, D02 F891 Tel: +353 (0)1 254 4316 Mob: +353 (0)87 417 2318 Linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/ Twitter: @deirdrelee
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2016 11:16:34 UTC