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

Re: Europeana API as an evidence for the DWBP

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:20:22 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1PzySKS4v+ZMsgrarEcHhHZpotLVa19m_QcbTKkKAOo3Rpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Cc: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Eric,

Thanks for your message and your contribution!

2016-11-03 12:00 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>:

> +1
> I agree with the thoughts on this email thread, especially Annette's idea "What
> we really want to collect is not evaluations of whole sites but a very
> short list of definitely compliant sites for each BP".  I have been
> starting and stopping evaluations trying to think through all the best
> practices and not wanting to make an open data site not look badly just
> because their concept of operations is very narrow in scope.
>

As I said in my answer to Annette's message, the idea shouldn't be to
evaluate the datasets or portals. We should focus on evaluating the DWBPs.
To do this, we should present evidences that help us to show that one or
more best practices are possible to implement.


>
> I can work from the spreadsheet that Berna provided me, but only
> concentrate on the BP evidence I did observe and ignore the other best
> practices that may or may not make sense for a particular site.  I will
> ignore non-compliance in my feedback.
>

I agree with you! Please, do like this.

IMO, our goal is twofold: i) to show that our proposed best practices are
possible to implement  and ii) to show that they are "best practices"
because are adopted by know organizations and datasets. Does it make sense
for you?

cheers,
Berna


> Eric S
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> I fear that our method of collecting implementation information is making
>> submissions burdensome and leading us to the wrong kind of evaluation.
>> These discussions of whether a particular site is a good one are not what
>> we're after. What we really want to collect is not evaluations of whole
>> sites but a very short list of definitely compliant sites for each BP. So
>> we don't really need to ask people to fill in a complete evaluation of each
>> site they offer as an example, and I doubt that we want to use the fact
>> that something is "partially compliant" for a single BP at all. I would
>> suggest a form that simply asks for the site info and then lets me
>> associate that with a BP from a drop-down menu. It would be handy for the
>> form to return, in addition to verification of the submission, another
>> input form with the site info prefilled, so that I could choose another BP
>> and submit that right away, or just call it a day. That would relieve the
>> pressure to try and fill out a painfully detailed evaluation.
>>
>> -Annette
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/30/16 3:39 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Bernadette,
>>>
>>> Thanks. In fact your effort shows good and bad points:
>>> - it's hard to collect all the details when one is not very close to the
>>> dataset
>>> - it's good that you contact people and nag them ;-)
>>>
>>> I've tried to add some comments to the form. And here's where the lack
>>> of time and generality of BPs hits. For many I was not sure that what I was
>>> thinking of would change a 'fail' into a 'pass'. So I've just put comments
>>> ina  new column, letting you judge - though for some BPs I'm quite
>>> affirmative that the API would pass.
>>>
>>> Also, I've generalize my response to include the linked data service. It
>>> becomes difficult to separate the LOD from a more 'traditional' API when
>>> one is built around the other, and both are on the same namespace. And even
>>> if our LOD service is less mature, we still intend it to be a recognition
>>> that some of the LOD recommendations are indeed BPs that we want to follow,
>>> and thus can be counted as 'implementation' (in the wider sense) of the
>>> specified BPs.
>>>
>>> So maybe it is better then to consider a wider 'Europeana Data service'
>>> item than just the 'traditional' API.
>>> Actually the various services we have at Europeana can also be seen as a
>>> token that some of us at Europeana do agree with some (not all!) of the
>>> points raised in the blog posts Pieter just sent. Even if that's another
>>> story - the point right now is that it's much better to consider our
>>> complete data offer not just one API.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>> On 27/10/16 20:19, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Antoine,
>>>>
>>>> I hope everything is fine with you! We are still collecting evidences
>>>> for the DWBP and I was considering to include the Europeana API as an
>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>> I was taking a look on the Europeana Labs site and I made a first
>>>> report about the API [1]. It would be great if you could take a look!
>>>> Please, let me know if you agree with the evaluation and feel free to
>>>> complement or to make changes.
>>>>
>>>> Feel free also to include other evidences.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>> Bernadette
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mRVp8Vdudepk68AjQbhN
>>>> oZnLU-0-vH_4fVug_J-hCxo/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> [2] http://labs.europeana.eu/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>>>> Centro de Informática
>>>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Annette Greiner
>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2016 13:21:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 9 November 2016 13:21:17 UTC