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

Re: BP Evidence example

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 09:42:59 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1PzxBZrN=5cKVmv0zZLAuyHJoa0vBTeMOHeVx5=43=jc39w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Phil,

Thanks a lot for your contribution! I'm gonna include the new evidences on
our implementation and I'm gonna let you know when we have a new version.

It is great that you could provide some evidences for data enrichment and
APIs ;) Please, let me know if you have more suggestions!

cheers,
Berna


2016-11-04 10:55 GMT-03:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>:

> Hi Berna,
>
> I've added a couple more reviews to the spreadsheet, from opposite ends of
> the spectrum. One is an effort by one or two activists in an off-shore
> island state (Guernsey) that is commendable in terms of what it achieves
> given its origin; however, it doesn't score well (not surprisingly). At the
> other end is datausa.io which is a highly professional aggregate and
> visualisation site with serious funding. I reviewed this one in particular
> as I thought it would be evidence for things that are likely to be missing
> from simple portals, like enrichment. Another one that comes to mind is
> http://opentrials.net/. I'll look at that when I get time (unless someone
> beats me to it of course).
>
> The datausa.io site is not really a place where you'd go to get a
> dataset. It's an 'infomediary' site but it does link back to the original
> sources, most of which are US census datasets. So it scores badly on things
> like metadata (I can't find any) but really well on the API stuff.
>
> HTH
>
> Phil.
>
>
> On 29/10/2016 18:08, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
>
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your contribution!
>>
>> I created and shared a spreadsheet with you on drive [1]. You can use this
>> to collect all your evidences and later on i'm gonna include them in the
>> implementation report. I already included the evidence from CIARD Ring in
>> your spreadsheet.
>>
>> Please, let me know if that is ok with you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Berna
>>
>> [1]
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wKfwLhT1DCyuDtf_
>> oY6HwB3mzf_4P5LrxmasLWxIa-o/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-10-28 12:45 GMT-03:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Following today's call, I wanted to have another go at reviewing a
>>> dataset
>>> for evidence gathering for the BPs. I looked at a dataset on the CIARD
>>> Ring
>>> site which is run by a group allied to the FAO. Specifically, I looked at
>>>
>>> http://ring.ciard.net/chinese-crop-germplasm-information-system-cgris
>>>
>>> My results are below
>>>
>>> I need to write to the folks who run the portal (I know one of them at
>>> least) and ask some questions related to some of the later BPs but
>>> there's
>>> some usable data here I hope.
>>>
>>> I also wanted to know how long this would take me as I need to follow up
>>> on my action-297 and write to folks to ask them to do the same. This took
>>> me about half an hour. I imagine if I knew the dataset better I could
>>> have
>>> done it more quickly, but then I know the BPs pretty well s I don't need
>>> to
>>> consider that content in detail. My guess is that it would be hard for a
>>> dataset owner/portal manager to do this is less than half an hour (and it
>>> could easily take an hour).
>>>
>>> CIARD Ring is a *very* good data portal (the best I know of anywhere)
>>> with
>>> tons of metadata but even on this portal there are gaps in the metadata.
>>>
>>> I'll provide some more examples in the coming week. I can't currently
>>> edit
>>> the Google doc which is one reason for sending the info in this mail.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> 1.  Pass
>>> 2.  Pass
>>> 3.  Pass
>>> 4.  Partial. No machine readable licence, user has to follow a link for
>>> more info when you find actually it's all rights reserved.
>>> 5.  Pass - publisher with good level of human readable info, although no
>>> PROV data as such.
>>> 6.  Fail
>>> 7.  Partial
>>> 8.  Fail
>>> 9.  Pass
>>> 10. Pass
>>> 11. Fail
>>> 12. Pass
>>> 13. Data is behind firewall but seems very likely pass.
>>> 14. Fail (only RDF is provided)
>>> 15. Pass
>>> 16. Pass - this is a reference dataset
>>> 17. Partial - you could download with SELECT *
>>> 18. Partial - you could download a subset with a query
>>> 19. Pass (Web page has embedded RDFa)
>>> 20. N/A
>>> 21. Pass
>>> 22. N/A
>>> 23. Pass
>>> 24. Pass
>>> 25. Pass
>>> 26. Pass
>>> 27. N/A
>>> 28. N/A
>>> 29. Pass
>>> 30. Fail
>>> 31. N/A
>>> 32. Fail
>>> 33. Need to ask
>>> 34. Need to ask
>>> 35. Pass
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> Data Strategist, W3C
> http://www.w3.org/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>



-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 7 November 2016 12:43:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 7 November 2016 12:43:54 UTC