Re: Europeana API as an evidence for the DWBP

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/1mRVp8Vdudepk68AjQbhNoZnLU-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

Received on Monday, 31 October 2016 23:44:19 UTC