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

Re: Updates on BP Provide data up to date and BP Make feedback available

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 08:51:04 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1Pzyti0Z+sXGcZEAWKja4zfJMXz5onvO02RjU0LuDBHfdDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Cc: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Annette,

thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions! I updated the doc
and the corresponding commits are: BP Up to date [1] and BP feedback
available [2].

I agree with most of your suggestions and I just have two comments:

The first one is about the example of the Up to Date BP:

>
> Example
> I like the example, but there is some new text that is problematic. " The
> issue date (dct:issued) of the dataset can be used as the basis for the
> creation of new versions." I don't know what you mean to say with that. If
> you are making a new version, the original version will of course be used
> as the basis of the new one, but that has little to do with the issue date
> or with making sure the update frequency is adequate. "It is important to
> note that new versions can be created when necessary, however the publisher
> must ensure that the dataset will be updated according to the predefined
> update frequency." This is another example of the confusion between
> updating the available data and updating the web publication. In the
> example RDF, the date for the previous version is later than the date for
> the new version.
>

I don't understand this part of your comment "This is another example of
the confusion between updating the available data and updating the web
publication. In the example RDF, the date for the previous version is later
than the date for the new version."

The issue date of the new version (bus-stops-2016-05-05) is 2016-05-05
while the issue date of the previous version (bus-stops-2015-12-17)
is 2015-12-17.


The other comment is about the Intended Outcome of the Feedback BP:

"Consumers will be able to assess the kinds of errors that affect the
> dataset and be reassured that the publisher is actively addressing issues
> as needed. Consumers will also be able to determine whether other users
> have already provided similar feedback, saving them the trouble of
> submitting unnecessary bug reports and sparing the maintainers from having
> to deal with duplicates."
>

I like this, but I think we should mention something related to the
consumer's opinion/rating about a dataset. I think that feedback is also
important to tell others that it is worth using the dataset rather than
just to report errors. Does it make sense for you?

What do you about this?

"Consumers will be able to assess the kinds of errors that affect the
dataset as well as consumers ratings and opinions, and be reassured that
the publisher is actively addressing issues as needed."


cheers,
Berna

[1]
https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/88256c8a815b1c677096bbdf2e76faecebe23b67
[2]
https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/729fa706ac4bf5d3165121a1032798de19f671dd




-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2016 11:51:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 3 May 2016 11:51:52 UTC