Re: dwbp-ACTION-123: Call for comments

+1 to Annette
Op 9 dec. 2014 17:06 schreef "Annette Greiner" <amgreiner@lbl.gov>:

> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>
>