Re: dwbp-ACTION-123: Call for comments

Re the producers/brokers/consumers question, our charter calls on us to create "guidance for publishers". I think that pretty clearly narrows the scope of what we should be doing. Data brokers are a subset of consumers who gather large amounts of (usually personal) data for others. Consumers are stakeholders in the discussion, but only in so far as they are consumers of the *data*. The guidance is for *publishers* of data.
-Annette

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 9, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello, Steve, Makx, Yaso,
> 
> Thank you for your comments.
> 
> The points that you have raised, show how difficult is to have a common understanding around words. And we know that depending on context, meaning could change. Since the beginning of my participation, I ask the group if it would be valuable to define a meta-model of Data on The Web. I think that without an explicit meta-model, each one could have its own understanding of the issue. 
> 
> =========
> Makx, 
> I agree with you that is difficult to exclude some instances of "data". It is our problem of scope since the beginning.
> 
> =========
> Steve,
> A Broker is different from a Consumer. Maybe we could not talk about roles. But they exist.
> 
> About the audience, if I remember well, in TPAC we decided that the audience will be a technical one.
> 
> Maybe you are right about the group simple treating data as a thing that is published. Period. A Dataset. Period. Maybe it is unnecessary to talk about roles. Data Published (or we can use the word Dataset) could be seen as the central entity in this Data on The Web world, and the only thing that we need to explain about metadata is that metadata is data about data. What I was trying to clarify, with the metadata introduction text, was "what is", "for who" and "for what". For me, assuming that someone intend to use a Dataset, metadata is, "some data about this Dataset that could be used to help someone to execute some task". And based on some tasks that we think that are the most common, we derive some metadata types. Not all, but some. In reality, many of these metadata types are not only specific to Data on the Web.
> 
> Maybe our meta-model could be assumed as being the DCAT meta-model. I think that is a thing that is implicit in many of our discussions. And, maybe, we will extend this DCAT meta-model, with the Data Vocabulary thread.
> 
> About Lifecycle, I think that there are some models. Maybe Data on the Web has a specific model, or not. I think Bernadette could explain this better.
> 
> ========
> Yaso,
> I didn't say that in all instances of Data on the Web we will have a Broker. But in many cases it will be true. I do not see a problem in using the word Broker. You said that the Broker is someone that negotiates something, is the intermediary. I see the Broker as the intermediary but not only with the perspective of someone that negotiates, referring only to money. DCAT-AP also uses the word Broker. For me, there is no problem in changing the word to Data Intermediary or other word. But someone else could argue against this word too.
> 
> I also didn't defined the word Published. I use it as data that was published. I don't agree in using public data, in contrast to private data. For me, it seems something like data that is free of charge. I don't know if we have to exclude this type of "data".
> 
> It is true that we have instances where a user could publish data and metadata without a catalog. But, again, I am not saying that in all instances a catalog will exist.
> 
> ========
> Again, thank you very much.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Laufer
> 
> 2014-12-08 18:53 GMT-02:00 Yaso <yaso@nic.br>:
>> I agree (again) that we should not try to define 'data'
>> 
>> Steve,
>> 
>> I was thinking that instead of using "data" in certain contexts, we
>> should use a more generic definition, like information resource, maybe.
>> "data in databases" also left me reflective, since I couldn't imagine
>> data that is not stored on databases....
>> 
>> Laufer,
>> 
>> I don't like using Broker as a definition for our document. It's a word
>> used to address a function that can be played by the publisher or by
>> consumer and it's related to marketing context. The broker is someone
>> that negotiates something, is the intermediary.
>> 
>> Instead of using "published data" I would like to use "public data" in
>> contrast to "private data". "Web data" is meant to be public, I think.
>> When someone publishes data on the Web it's intrinsec that this data is
>> public (it may be not discoverable, thus, but still is public data)
>> 
>> Of course that private data can be published on the Web, but there are
>> some concerns and issues around this point. If we're going to talk about
>> private data, then we would have to talk about privacy and ownership, I
>> think.
>> 
>> Just adding metadata to the discussion around "data" with no metadata
>> about them (recursive rhetoric :-p):
>> 
>> I think sometimes we confuse "data catalog" with other resources that
>> are on the Web. For instance, a document that contains metadata added
>> using microdata is not a data catalog, but it provides metadata about a
>> resource. Also, in another situation, we can have metadata attached as
>> tags in some x format, and this data can be harvested and consumed, it
>> can be enriched or restructured, or even inferred by statistic methods
>> that analyse text available as information.
>> 
>> This group Is meant to help people to make this kind of resources
>> discoverable (and etcetera) by using w3c recommended technologies, so
>> It's better open a wide range of situations, not only that in which data
>> catalogs are available.
>> 
>> all the best,
>> yaso
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/8/14 5:21 PM, Makx Dekkers wrote:
>> > Steven,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I just wanted to make a point related to your comments:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > <quote>
>> >
>> > Challenges:
>> >
>> > 3.  Here I think you need to define up front what "Data" published on
>> > the Web is all about.  Many readers may not understand that webpages
>> > themselves are not "data" because unstructured text is stored in a
>> > different kind of repository than "data".  A little history of the Web,
>> > and how "data" in databases came to be published online - as opposed to
>> > behind a firewall in a traditional enterprise application - would be
>> > helpful here as we can't presume our audience understands this.
>> >
>> > </quote>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This comes back to a discussion we had in the beginning of this group:
>> > what types of data are we talking about? (see:
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2014Feb/0029.html).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Your statement that webpages are not data seems to exclude things like a
>> > set of interlinked webpages that contain legal texts,  public
>> > procurement specifications, or other collections of snippets of text. I
>> > don't think we should narrow the definition of 'data' in this way.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The problem that I see is that an attempt to define what 'data' is,
>> > implies that we also need to agree on what is 'not-data', and that may
>> > be hard.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Makx.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Steven Adler [mailto:adler1@us.ibm.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 7:13 PM
>> > To: Laufer
>> > Cc: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group
>> > Subject: Re: dwbp-ACTION-123: Call for comments
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Laufer,
>> >
>> > I enjoy reading your English.  You write very well.  Some comments:
>> >
>> > Introduction:
>> >
>> > 1.  I'm not keen on the abstraction of roles in the first paragraph.
>> > Publisher, Broker, and Consumer seems restrictive.  Why should we
>> > prescribe roles and responsibilities for each, and how is a Broker
>> > really different than a Consumer?
>> >
>> > Audience:
>> >
>> > 2.  It is not always clear that your audience is as wide as you say it
>> > is.  Sometimes you seem to be writing for laymen and your descriptions
>> > are clear.  Then a sentence later you switch to technical terms and your
>> > audience seems to be for IT professionals who understand what machine
>> > readable semantics are all about.  I think you should try to write for
>> > laymen, even if it takes longer to explain terminology, because it will
>> > ensure the document is read by the largest possible audience.
>> >
>> > Challenges:
>> >
>> > 3.  Here I think you need to define up front what "Data" published on
>> > the Web is all about.  Many readers may not understand that webpages
>> > themselves are not "data" because unstructured text is stored in a
>> > different kind of repository than "data".  A little history of the Web,
>> > and how "data" in databases came to be published online - as opposed to
>> > behind a firewall in a traditional enterprise application - would be
>> > helpful here as we can't presume our audience understands this.
>> >
>> > Lifecyle:
>> >
>> > 4.  Is the Data on the Web lifecycle different than other Data Lifecycle
>> > Management lifecycles?  How?  Is it possible to compare and contrast
>> > them to show the reader what is the same, what is different, and what is
>> > new?
>> >
>> > Best Practices:
>> >
>> > 5.  I don't see how we are using the Publisher, Broker, Consumer roles
>> > or why they event need to be defined.  Data is published.  Period.  We
>> > are concerned with how to publish it in the best way.  How it is
>> > brokered and consumed after is not part of our standard.  Nicht war?
>> >
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> > Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
>> >
>> > Laufer ---12/05/2014 09:46:08 AM---Hello all, I wrote a description for
>> > the beginning of the metadata section and I want
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From:
>> >
>> >
>> > Laufer <laufer@globo.com <mailto:laufer@globo.com> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > To:
>> >
>> >
>> > Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
>> > <mailto:public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Date:
>> >
>> >
>> > 12/05/2014 09:46 AM
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Subject:
>> >
>> >
>> > dwbp-ACTION-123: Call for comments
>> >
>> >   _____
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > I wrote a description for the beginning of the metadata section and I
>> > want to ask the group to comment:
>> >
>> > http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#metadata
>> >
>> > Thank you.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Laufer
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br
>> W3C Brazil Office
>> @yaso
>> 
>> 55 11 5509-3537 (4025)
>> skype: yasocordova
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> .  .  .  .. .  . 
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .