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

Re: Data reuse split into 3 - review

From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:49:51 -0700
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56FD633F.4090301@lbl.gov>
This is a good thought exercise, to think through our BPs and ask 
ourselves if any of them implies something that would need to be done 
differently for a reuse than for an original publication. My feeling is 
that the three BPs we have in the reuse section are the only ones that 
call for doing something differently.
-Annette

On 3/31/16 10:40 AM, Laufer wrote:
>
> 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 <https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#h4_can-req-usage>].
>>
>> 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
>
> --
>
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>

-- 
Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2016 17:51:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 31 March 2016 17:51:22 UTC