- From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 15:12:20 -0200
- To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Cc: DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+pXJihRHCjXspwdbpi60hAPBOkL=ZJBTvizOom4xROERub3AA@mail.gmail.com>
>The guidance is for *publishers* of data. But the guide is also for the "publishers" of "metadata". Laufer 2014-12-09 14:05 GMT-02:00 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 >> >> > > > -- > . . . .. . . > . . . .. > . .. . > > -- . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. .
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2014 17:12:49 UTC