Re: audience for the BP doc

Well, I exposed my thoughts. I do not want to extend this discussion.

Cheers,
Laufer


Em terça-feira, 16 de dezembro de 2014, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
escreveu:

> I think we do need comments from data consumers in developing the best
> practices. That is why I suggested that, in developing our use cases, we
> try to talk with people who had been consumers of the data described in
> those use cases. That’s a good way to identify issues to address. But that
> is our process for developing the BPs, not who the audience for the final
> document should be. Reviewers are often not members of the intended
> audience of a piece. If I wrote a children’s book about astronauts, I would
> want an astronaut to review it, but I wouldn’t then write the book with
> astronauts as the audience.
> -Annette
> --
> Annette Greiner
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> 510-495-2935
>
> On Dec 16, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','laufer@globo.com');>> wrote:
>
> Just thinking...
>
> We are doing a document for data publishers that may, should or must have
> best practices that could be valuable for data consumers, but we think that
> this document is not for data consumers...
>
> So, data publishers know what are the things that data consumers consider
> best practices for them... And we do not need comments from data
> consumers...
>
> Data consumers should (must?) assess the best practices...
>
> Best Regards,
> Laufer
>
> 2014-12-16 17:43 GMT-02:00 Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','amgreiner@lbl.gov');>>:
>>
>> I think the introduction is not suitable because it says that we are
>> writing BPs for use by consumers of data, but none of our current BPs is
>> written as a BP on which consumers (other than those who are re-publishing,
>> and are therefore publishers) can take action. They do not address
>> consumers as an audience.
>> -Annette
>> --
>> Annette Greiner
>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>> 510-495-2935
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bfl@cin.ufpe.br');>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Annette,
>>
>> Thank you for answer! My comments are inline.
>>
>> I think we need to have non-normative material that matches our normative
>>> material. This discussion started up because we have a disconnect there.
>>>
>>
>> The first four sections of the document are non-normative and the idea is
>> to use them to explain our context and to give definitions that are
>> relevant for readers to understand the document. Maybe, instead of having a
>> separate document we should try to improve these sections.
>>
>>
>>> If we want to keep the introduction as is, we would need to change the
>>> best practices we are developing, broadening the scope considerably. I
>>> think it’s much less work to make the introduction work for the content
>>> it’s meant to introduce.
>>>
>>
>> Could you please explain why the introduction is not suitable for the BP
>> that will be developed? I'm sorry, but this is not clear for me.
>>
>> It is important to note that BP will be developed according to the
>> challenges/requirements identified in the Use Cases Document [1].
>>
>>
>>> I’d be happy to take a stab at rewriting if you like. My feeling is that
>>> it doesn’t really need to change all that much, because we do want to still
>>> mention the importance of considering usage when you publish. (BTW, I think
>>> we should be trying to get publishers to think of putting data on the web
>>> as more than merely hosting files and administering the data. In fact, we
>>> have a list of things they should be thinking about: the best practices
>>> document.)
>>>
>>
>> I agree with you! Data publishers have a really hard work to make data
>> available on the Web and that's why the BP document is being proposed.
>>
>> kind regards,
>> Bernadette
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/
>>
>> -Annette
>>>
>>> --
>>> Annette Greiner
>>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>>> 510-495-2935
>>>
>>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bfl@cin.ufpe.br');>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments!
>>>
>>> I agree with Makx that it could be a good idea to concentrate on the
>>> audience of data providers (data publishers). However, if we do this then
>>> the whole discourse that was built until now has to be changed because we
>>> are always talking about data publication and data usage. For example, the
>>> first sentence of the abstract says: "This document provides best practices
>>> related to the publication and usage of data on the Web designed to help
>>> support a self-sustaining ecosystem".
>>>
>>> Moreover, the document is about "Data on the Web Best Practices" and not
>>> only about "Publishing Data on the Web Best Practices".
>>>
>>> As proposed in the charter, the mission of our group includes: "to
>>> develop the open data ecosystem, facilitating better communication between
>>> developers and publishers;". In this sense, I think that it is also
>>> important to tell developers (or data consumers in general) how they can
>>> interact with data publishers, i.e., how they can provide feedback to data
>>> publishers and also how they can provide information that helps to find out
>>> how data has been used.
>>>
>>> However, before we decide if we're gonna abandon the BP for data
>>> consumers, I think it is really important to have an agreement about the
>>> role of data publishers and data consumers.
>>>
>>> In my point of view, data consumer concerns the one who wants to use
>>> data available on the Web to produce "something" instead of just reading
>>> the data. For example, when a developer uses raw data available on the Web
>>> to develop an application, then the developer plays the role of a data
>>> consumer and not the role of a data publisher.
>>>
>>> Concerning data publishers, I agree with Eric that "Publishers just
>>> focus on hosting and administering their data on the web in an orderly way".
>>>
>>> kind regards,
>>> Bernadette
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-12-16 8:36 GMT-03:00 Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mail@makxdekkers.com');>>:
>>>>
>>>> Eric, Annette, all,
>>>>
>>>> To me, it would make sense if we concentrated on the audience of data
>>>> providers, at least for now. I think this is already a big order.
>>>>
>>>> If we also want to cover best practices for the re-users of data
>>>> (developers, aggregators, mix-and-matchers, brokers, whatever you want to
>>>> call them), we’ll be spreading a scarce resource (ourselves) even thinner,
>>>> and run the risk of producing two sets of insufficient quality.
>>>>
>>>> Let’s focus on the data providers first and then, when we have a good
>>>> set of best practices and still have time left, turn our attention to the
>>>> consumer side of the picture.
>>>>
>>>> Makx.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-12-16 6:29 GMT+01:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ericphb@gmail.com');>>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Annette for sharing your thoughts on this topic in the meeting
>>>>> last week and in this email.  In your text the term consumers really jumped
>>>>> out at me.  If consumers only has a read-only connotation then I'd rather
>>>>> avoid this term altogether.  Actually consumers was never actually never
>>>>> mentioned originally as part of the working group mission, instead the term
>>>>> "developer" was used.
>>>>>
>>>>> Developers to me, are technologists building applications and devices
>>>>> that reuse published data, including creating new data that can be
>>>>> published, processing and modifying published data, or strictly reading
>>>>> data in the life span of a running application. Users rely on the tools
>>>>> created by publishers and developers to edit published data and provide
>>>>> feedback.  Publishers to me just focus on hosting and administering their
>>>>> data on the web in an orderly way.  Since the original intent of BP was to
>>>>> "facilitate better communication between developers and publishers.'  Maybe
>>>>> there should be best practices that target publishers and developers
>>>>> divided into two documents.
>>>>>
>>>>> The closest analogy is that off the shelf data storage systems two
>>>>> types of documentation are written:
>>>>> 1) Data administrators who manage the data system
>>>>> 2) End users (developers) who write applications that interact with
>>>>> the data system
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric S
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','amgreiner@lbl.gov');>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>> To pick up the discussion about our audience, I want to set down what
>>>>>> I see as our audience for the current BP document. By audience I mean the
>>>>>> people we expect to actually sit down and read it, not the people whose
>>>>>> interests we need to consider in creating it (those are what I call
>>>>>> stakeholders). It’s possible that we all agree but are just thinking of the
>>>>>> terms differently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To my mind, our audience includes anyone involved in making data
>>>>>> available to consumers on the web. That is publishing data. It includes
>>>>>> anyone who collects or collates the data, organizes the data, creates web
>>>>>> pages or apps to share the data, re-publishes it in such a way that others
>>>>>> can re-use it, or makes decisions relevant to how people do those tasks.
>>>>>> They could be developers, lawyers, CIOs, researchers, archivists,
>>>>>> designers, almost any job title. What matters, though, is not their job
>>>>>> title but what actions they take with respect to the data. The action of
>>>>>> consuming it is not what we have been discussing, it isn’t represented in
>>>>>> any of the current best practices or in our scoping criteria, and it isn’t
>>>>>> called for in the charter’s requirement to create a BP document. Thus far,
>>>>>> we are not targeting our BPs to people who are *only* consuming the data
>>>>>> and not republishing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’ve already talked about the charter and the existing BPs in a
>>>>>> previous email, so I’ll just address the scoping criteria here. The first
>>>>>> one, being unique to publishing on the web, is obviously about publishing
>>>>>> rather than consuming. The second one, encouraging reuse, is also about
>>>>>> publishing, just in such a way that someone else can make use of the data.
>>>>>> The charter mentions re-use in its mission in list item 2, which calls on
>>>>>> us to "provide _guidance_to_publishers_ that will improve consistency in
>>>>>> the way data is managed, thus promoting the re-use of data". If a consumer
>>>>>> wants to publish something that makes the data truly re-usable, they must
>>>>>> include the data itself, which means that they are publishing the data. The
>>>>>> third criterion, testability, simply deals with the mechanics of making
>>>>>> sure that one is successful in achieving the best practices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might help to consider an example: your organization publishes
>>>>>> data about traffic in Rio. It's made available through an API. A data
>>>>>> scientist in Lisbon is interested in the data and makes a visualization
>>>>>> based on it that she posts on her blog. The data scientist does not make
>>>>>> the data available in any form other than the visualization itself. She has
>>>>>> not really enriched your data, because the original data still has no
>>>>>> connection to the visualization. She cannot take action on any of the best
>>>>>> practices we have identified thus far unless she re-publishes it herself,
>>>>>> as data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your organization could link to the visualization, thereby enriching
>>>>>> the data, but the data scientist in Lisbon cannot force it to do that. Our
>>>>>> best practice around data enrichment calls on publishers to consider making
>>>>>> that link or creating the visualization themselves. If we were writing that
>>>>>> same best practice for a consumer audience, it would have to say something
>>>>>> like "you should enrich other people's data". So, we would end up telling
>>>>>> data enrichers that they should enrich data, which strikes me as
>>>>>> tautological. One could go into detail about how to make good
>>>>>> visualizations (use good labels, don’t rely on color alone, provide a zero
>>>>>> point in your scales, etc.), but that seems to me out of scope. (I teach an
>>>>>> entire semester course on visualization, so I could come up with lots of
>>>>>> best practices about it, but I don't think we want to go there in the BP
>>>>>> document we’ve been working on.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now suppose the consumer in Lisbon would like to provide feedback. If
>>>>>> we, as the publisher, have not provided a mechanism for them to do so, they
>>>>>> cannot provide it. Our best practice is about making it possible to provide
>>>>>> feedback and then acting on the feedback to improve the published data. A
>>>>>> consumer has a role here, but again, there is little point to telling a
>>>>>> consumer who wants to give feedback that they should give feedback. I
>>>>>> certainly wouldn’t expect a data consumer to wade through a long list of
>>>>>> publisher-oriented best practices to be told that they should give feedback
>>>>>> whenever they are so inclined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would support the idea of putting together a separate list of best
>>>>>> practices for data consumers if we can think of a way to scope it that
>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Annette
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Annette Greiner
>>>>>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>>>>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>>>>>> 510-495-2935
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Makx Dekkers
>>>> mail@makxdekkers.com
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mail@makxdekkers.com');>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>>> Centro de Informática
>>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>> Centro de Informática
>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>
>
>

-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .