- From: Steven Adler <adler1@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:21:09 -0500
- To: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
- Cc: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>, DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF7E862E9C.5DBE3AED-ON85257DB1.004EB333-85257DB1.004ED74E@us.ibm.com>
I agree with Laufer's comments. The intended audience is Data Publishers,
who, by the way, are often also Data Consumers. So it is more than
possible to address the former and include the latter without anyone
feeling left out.
Best Regards,
Steve
Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
|------------>
| From: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Laufer <laufer@globo.com> |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>, DWBP Public List |
|<public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|12/16/2014 06:48 PM |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|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> 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>:
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> 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> 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>:
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>:
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> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
. . . .. . .
.    .  . ..
. .. .
--
. . . .. . .
. . . ..
. .. .
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 10:58:59 UTC