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

Data reuse split into 3 - review

From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:40:38 -0300
To: DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d7bf52172f5ad8f9da220820ba8fa307@globo.com>
 

Hi All, 

Sorry about the long text. 

I do not agree with this new section about Data Usage. 

Summarizing: I think that the aspects of Data Usage that are mentioned
in the new BPs are covered by the BPs in our list: "Provide data license
information", "Gather feedback from data consumers" and "Provide
information about feedback". 

My main thought is that the object that is the base of our set of BPs is
a dataset that is being published, and not the "next" dataset that could
be using the original dataset. For me, the "next" dataset has to follow
our original set of BPs. 

When we talk about Data Usage in our set of BPs ("Gather feedback from
data consumers" and "Provide information about feedback"), the central
object that is being addressed is the original dataset and how more
information could be added to help users to understand and use this
dataset. 

We are not addressing the "next" dataset (or datasets). Even a user that
simply "uses" the dataset could also give feedback. These two BPs talk
about how the Publisher of the original dataset should provide ways to
gather and to aggregate this information to the dataset. In that sense,
we already talk about DUV (that covers both the feedback and citation). 

I think that the new section put the focus on the "next" dataset. In our
first BP "Provide data license information" we do not tell the Publisher
how she will define the license of a dataset. It could cover a lot of
things as, for example, Government Policies, Organization Policies, etc.
And one of the things to be taken into account is the license of
datasets that are being combined to generate the dataset to be
published. If the editors and the members of the group feel that this is
important to say, I think this should be said in the BP "Provide data
license information". Not in a new one. 

If we enter in the merit to explore how someone will use the dataset,
and give advice on that, we will have to review all of our BPs. For
example, the versioning aspect. How the "next" dataset will respect the
versioning of the original datasets being used? The new Publishers will
generate a new version each time the original ones generate new
versions? Thinking about vocabularies: how the Publisher of the 'next"
dataset will treat the use of different datasets that have different
vocabularies to express similar (or identical) things? She will use a
single one vocabulary? And so on. We probably will have issues for all
BPs. 

Best regards, Laufer 

Em 28/03/2016 17:57, Newton Calegari escreveu: 

> Dear chairs,
> 
> I'm sending this e-mail to let you know before the chair's meeting that we talked to Annette about Data Reuse section.
> 
> We agreed to change the BP Reuse and split it into 3 new BPs approaching the subjects of Respect License, Citation and Giving Feedback.These 3 new BPs would fit in a new section Data Usage, which is listed as "Requirements for Data Usage" in the Use Cases Document[1 [1]].
> 
> The changes we're gonna make are:
> * Split Reuse BP in 3: Respect License, Citation and Give Feedback;
> * Change Data Reuse to Data Usage section;
> * Mention in a paragraph that for reuse it is important to implement the 3 BPs in the section mentioned above.
> 
> We expect to finish the changes and send to the group to review them by Wednesday afternoon.
> 
> Best,
> BP Editors
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#h4_can-req-usage [1]

-- 

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

 

Links:
------
[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#h4_can-req-usage
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2016 17:41:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 31 March 2016 17:41:12 UTC