Re: BP Guidelines

Hi Phil,

I really like your idea of including more information into the 'how to
section'. I'm gonna update the wiki page with your suggestion.

I also agree with Steve that considering 3 levels of implementation is a
good start!

Thank you!

Cheers,
Bernadette


2014-07-11 9:52 GMT-03:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>:

> This looks like real progress, thanks, especially Bernadette for getting a
> hold of things and working on the structure.
>
> Picking up on that structure and Steve's idea of a rating scheme, I wonder
> whether it might be possible to extend the 'how to' sections into:
>
> 1. what you must do as a minimum;
> 2. what you can do with modest extra effort to do better;
> 3. the best way to do it.
>
> That's only three levels (roughly equating to RFC 2119 MUST, SHOULD and
> MAY) but it might be sufficient? Coming up with 5, or 7 levels of
> implementation might be a tall order?
>
> Not all BPs are going to have any kind of granularity, it might just be
> the MUST and that's it, you MUST. But where there is gradation, OK, people
> like to see a path they can follow.
>
> Phil.
>
>
>
>
> On 11/07/2014 02:31, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I made some changes on the Best Practices Guidelines wiki page [3].
>> Following Antoine's suggestion, instead of having general and specific
>> best
>> practices, now we have just best practices.
>>
>> I also included a terminology section with definitions (from DCAT [1] and
>> the Linked Data Glossary [2]) for the main concepts used in the best
>> practices .  I think it is really important that we have an agreement
>> about
>> these concepts and it would be great to have some feedback about this.
>>
>> Please feel free to modify or include new definitions, suggestions or
>> questions.
>>
>> kind regards,
>> Bernadette
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/
>> [3] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Best_practices_guidelines
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-07-04 10:59 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>:
>>
>>  Replying to the questions you posed Steve:
>>>
>>> 1.  Are worst practices always the absence of a specific or generic best
>>> practice?
>>>
>>> Worst practices might also include misinterpretations of the best
>>> practices (I suppose examples need to be supplied here to support these
>>> two
>>> additional proposed "worst practices":
>>> *  Altered best practice:  Either misinterpreted best practice or
>>> intentionally altering best practice leading to syntactically confusing
>>> solutions that don't align with the Open Data community.
>>> *  Failure to serve data consumer communities:  Best practice(s) that
>>> support well formed "Open Data", but fail to provide valid solutions for
>>> downstream that are useful to downstream consumer communities.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.  Do we have use case examples of worst or absent practices?
>>>
>>> Yes, in fact I'm wondering if we could take the challenges section in
>>> many
>>> of the use cases and use them as examples of worst/absent practices.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3.  Could we think about a maturity scale of practices from 0 to 5 or 7
>>> so
>>> as to provide users with an understanding of where they are today and
>>> what
>>> they need to do to improve?
>>>
>>> This is a great idea.
>>>
>>> Eric Stephan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Steven Adler <adler1@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Great effort.  Some random thoughts and comments:
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Are worst practices always the absence of a specific or generic best
>>>> practice?
>>>>
>>>> 2.  Do we have use case examples of worst or absent practices?
>>>>
>>>> 3.  Could we think about a maturity scale of practices from 0 to 5 or 7
>>>> so as to provide users with an understanding of where they are today and
>>>> what they need to do to improve?
>>>>
>>>> See this as an example of what I mean.  This is the IBM Data Governance
>>>> Maturity Model my Council of 55 companies created in 2006-11.  It has 11
>>>> categories and many sub categories over 5 levels of maturity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is all Open Source today, and you can click on any of the links here
>>>> to see the underlying content.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.infogovcommunity.com/blog/classification-metadata/
>>>>
>>>> You have to register on the site to see this, but everyone can use
>>>> anything here for our BP work.  This goes farther that technical BP,
>>>> but it
>>>> is not specific to Data Governance and we may find many examples here we
>>>> can re-use.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br> To: "
>>>> public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> Date: 06/11/2014 11:05
>>>> PM
>>>> Subject: BP Guidelines
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I created a new wiki page [1] with some guidelines that may help us
>>>> define the structure of the Best Practices document. This page also
>>>> shows
>>>> an attempt to map the use case requirements to possible best practices.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to ask you to take a look and if possible to give some
>>>> feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>> Bernadette
>>>>
>>>> [1] *https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Best_practices_guidelines*
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Best_practices_guidelines>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>>>> Centro de Informática
>>>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>



-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------