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

Re: Fwd: Comments on Tracker

From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:02:35 -0700
To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56F439CB.2000708@lbl.gov>
Hi Berna,
Thanks for resending this.
We can close LC-3046 and LC-3048.
I do still see issues with the identification section, but the original 
one pointed out in 3046 is taken care of.

These are the issues: BP11, Use persistent URIs as identifiers of 
datasets is about having a persistent identifier for the dataset as a 
whole. BP12 is about identifiers within datasets. Yet, BP11 gets into 
detail about "locally unique identifiers". The paragraph after the Issue 
3 note is irrelevant to that BP. I also think the table is too much. We 
should just link to a few references in footnotes and summarize the key 
points about them. I don't want to hit people over the head with links 
that they don't need to read to understand the concepts.

LC-3047 still needs to be addressed. I think we need to make it more 
clear what this BP is about. It's really about data that gets updated 
periodically. Most experimental data, for example, is not like this. You 
run an experiment and then publish the data; you don't keep updating it, 
even if the thing the experiment was measuring continues to happen. The 
"how to test" section doesn't really make sense, either. All it does is 
verify that a revision was published. It needs to test whether data is 
out of date. It should compare the date the most recent version of the 
dataset, or the most recent dataset in a time series, was created and 
the date of the most recent copy available on the web, and they should 

On 3/24/16 9:43 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Caroline Burle* <cburle@nic.br <mailto:cburle@nic.br>>
> Date: 2016-03-14 13:13 GMT-03:00
> Subject: Comments on Tracker
> To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov <mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>>, 
> Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>>
> Cc: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group 
> <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>>
> Annette,
> we are wondering if your comments on the Comment Tracker have been 
> addressed. Would you kindly check them, please?
> LC-3046 * Data Identification
> Issue: to discuss about limiting this section to information that 
> applies to publishing *data*.
> WG notes: This section was completed modified after this comment.
> LC-3047 Provide data up to date
> Issue: to debate if the goal should be to adhere to a published 
> schedule for updates.
> LC-3048 Data enrichment
> Issue: to discuss about enrichment yields derived data, not just 
> metadata. For example, you could take a dataset of scheduled and real 
> bus arrival times and enrich it by adding on-time arrival percentages. 
> The percentages are data, not metadata.
> Issue: to discuss about the meaning of the word “topification”.
> WG notes: this was reformulated by Annette.
> Thank you! Kind regards,
> Bernadette, Caroline and Newton
> LC-3046 
> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3046
> LC-3047 
> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3047
> LC-3048 
> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3048
> -- 
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2016 19:03:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 24 March 2016 19:03:02 UTC