- From: Jo緌 Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:59:07 -0300
- To: "Lee, Deirdre" <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Dear Deirdre and all, Regrets for the call today. I am again travelling (this and next week). Here goes my proposal: Eliminate the R-MetadataInteroperable and R-LicenseInteroperable requirements Rename R-MetadataStandardized to MetadataFormatStandardized Include the following definitions: R-MetadataFormatStandardized - Metadata should conform to standard formats to facilitate metadata interoperability R-FormatStandardized - Data should conform to standard formats to facilitate interoperability R-FormatMachineRead(able) Metadata should conform to standard formats that aim at facilitating automated processing R-LicenseStandardized - Data about the license(s) attributed to a dataset should conform to standard formats to facilitate interoperability R-LicenseMachineRead(able) - Data about the license(s) attributed to a dataset should conform to standard formats that aim at facilitating automated processing Best regards, Jo緌 Paulo On 29/8/14, 7:38 AM, "Lee, Deirdre" <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org> wrote: >Hi all, > >In today's call I would like if possible to make a decision on this... > >Should we keep the following requirements: > > €R-MetadataInteroperable > €R-LicenseInteroperable > >In addition to the following requirements are defined: > > €R-MetadataMachineRead > €R-MetadataStandardized > > €R-LicenseMachineRead > €R-LicenseStandardized > >Discussion at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/23 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] >Sent: 22 August 2014 13:05 >To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org >Subject: Re: Does standardisation assume interoperability? > >Hi, > >I'm not sure that discussing too much interoperability will help us get a >quick solution. In fact in what Deirdre put below, item (c) implies that >(a) and (b) are not necessary (they're just 'standard-focused' rewriting >of (c) ) > >I don't understand what Joao Paulo said. He proposed to get rid of the >the *Standardized requirements but he suggests to add them back, in >practice. > >In the end I would just keep >R-MetadataStandardized, making the point that standard should address the >model, documentation and interoperability (as it should, see the intro at >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization) >R-MetadataMachineReadable, assuming this includes format concerns (which >with the first requirement gives you standardized formats). > >Best, > >Antoine > >On 8/11/14 4:40 PM, Lee, Deirdre wrote: >> Thanks for your input Giancarlo and Laufer. Is it fair to summarise as >>follows: >> >> Two datasets are interoperable if: >> >> a.They are modelled according to the same standard. >> >> b.They are modelled according to standards that are interoperable >> >> c.They are modelled according to the same formal representation (not >>necessarily standardised) >> >> (b) corresponds to a case where we know how the meaning of the elements >>in each standard relate to the elements in the other standard. >> >> (c) corresponds to the case where you have used a reference ontology to >>facilitate the interoperability of ECG data. >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Deirdre Lee >> >> Research Associate >> >> eGovernment Domain (DEG) >> >> Insight-NUIG >> >> IDA BusinessPark, Lower Dangan, >> >> Galway, Ireland >> >> deirdre.lee@deri.org <mailto:deirdre.lee@deri.org> >> skype: deirdrelee >> >> twitter: @deirdrelee >> >> linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/ >><http://ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> *From:*Giancarlo Guizzardi [mailto:gguizzardi@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* 11 August 2014 09:00 >> *To:* Laufer >> *Cc:* Lee, Deirdre; Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group >> *Subject:* Re: Does standardisation assume interoperability? >> >> Folks, >> >> Regarding the two questions: >> >> (a) Does standardization entail interoperability? >> >> and (b) Can something be interoperable without being standardized? >> >> Let us first settled what we mean by interoperability. >> >> I will start with the following working definition of semantic >>interoperability: >> >> A model X is semantically interoperable with model Y if we know >> >> how the meaning of the elements in X relate to the meaning of elements >>in Y. >> >> If we take "meaning" in the sense of referential semantics, this means >>that >> >> we can always relate in the correct manner >> >> the referents of the model elements in X with the referents >> >> of the model elements in Y. >> >> With that in mind (and answering (b)), we can achieve interoperability >>whenever we are able >> >> to establish and fully understand the relation between the referents of >>X and Y. >> >> Good standards certainly facilitate that. >> >> However, if we put the question as "standardization ENTAILS >>interoperability" (question a), >> >> the answer is clearly no. To put it simply, this is because (among >>other reasons, including non-technical ones...) >> >> there are bad standards. Bad standards in the sense that they are not >>sufficiently expressive and clear in helping >> >> users to express their world views in terms of the standard. >> >> There are many examples of domains with multiple standards >> >> that it is far from obvious how to relate the meaning of things >> >> in standard X and with the meaning of things in standard Y. >> >> This is even the case in the so-called hard science domains. >> >> To cite on example in heart Electrophysiogy. >> >> In the following paper >> >> http://www.j-biomed-inform.com/article/S1532-0464(10)00118-8/pdf >> >> we show the difficulties in relating multiple existing ECG standards. >> >> The paper is actually both an example of lack interoperability with >> >> the presence of multiple standards as well as an example of >> >> interoperability achieved with a reference ontology that is >> >> not a standard, i.e., "interoperability without a standard". >> >> Best, >> >> Giancarlo >> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com >><mailto:laufer@globo.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I don愒 know if the following example makes sense to this discussion. >>But it comes to my mind. >> >> Analog television has some different standards as, for example, PAL and >>NTSC, and they are not interoperable. >> >> I don愒 know if, in this case, the term should be compatible. >> >> Best, >> Laufer >> >> 2014-08-08 11:43 GMT-03:00 Lee, Deirdre <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org >><mailto:Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>>: >> >> Hi, >> >> We had a good call today, addressing many of the raised issues for >>UCR. One issue that we felt warranted more discussion was /ISSUE-23: >>Review definition of interoperability/ >>https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/23 >> >> The following questions were raised: Does standardisation imply >>interoperability? Are there cases where data uses standards, but is not >>interoperable? Can interoperability be achieved independent of >>standardisation? In DWBP, should we have a specific definition of >>interoperability? >> >> In the UCR, there are the following two requirements: >> >> 愛-MetadataInteroperable >> >> 愛-LicenseInteroperable >> >> And also >> >> 愛-MetadataMachineRead >> >> 愛-MetadataStandardized >> >> 愛-LicenseMachineRead >> >> 愛-LicenseStandardized >> >> Possible resolutions for the UCR could be: >> >> a.Remove R胞etadataInteroperable and R-LicenseInteroperable from >>UCR because they雹e redundant >> >> b.Improve description of R-MetadataStandardized and >>R-LicenseStandardized >> >> c.Other? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Deirdre >> >> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Deirdre Lee >> >> Research Associate >> >> eGovernment Domain (DEG) >> >> Insight-NUIG >> >> IDA BusinessPark, Lower Dangan, >> >> Galway, Ireland >> >> deirdre.lee@deri.org <mailto:deirdre.lee@deri.org> >> skype: deirdrelee >> >> twitter: @deirdrelee >> >> linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/ >><http://ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/> >> >> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> -- >> . . . .. . . >> . . . .. >> . .. . >> >
Received on Friday, 29 August 2014 12:59:42 UTC