RE: Call for comments on open questions about the audience for the DWBP doc

 

 

Bernadette,

 

*  I am still not convinced that the DWBP document is not interesting for re-users (already using the terminology presented by Makx) even if the scope is just BP for data publishers. If re-users will manipulate the data, don't you think that it will be good if they have some knowledge about the best practices used to create and publish the data? 

 

So let’s try to define ‘audience’. I think the ‘audience’ for the BP document is the group of people that we want to act on the best practice. In the BP document, we’re trying to tell data publishers to do things in a certain way.

 

This does not say that we’re not allowing anyone else, especially the data consumers; to read the document, but we’re not telling them to do anything themselves.

 

What will happen is that when data consumers read the document, they might note that a particular publisher does not follow best practice as described in the BP document. If that happens, they could contact the publisher and complain.

 

This is similar to the European Union’s Directive on the re-use of public sector information. That Directive tells public sector bodies what they MUST and MUST NOT do. Anyone who wants to re-use information can read the Directive and the national law that implements it and then complain if a particular public sector body does not adhere to the principles laid down in the Directive. 

 

Makx.