Re: Actions for all of us — from today's call

Hello Christophe,

Thank you very much for your comments! Yesterday, I made a pull request of
a new version of the document with some updates on Section 4. You can find
the updated version here [1].  Please, if possible, take a look to see if
this new version is better.

I also agree with you that we should get ride of all the "???" of Section
5. In some cases, we identified the requirements, but we still don't have
any use case to make the link. If we don't have a link, then I suggest to
remove the requirement.

Cheers,
Bernadette

[1] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/master/usecasesv1.html


2014-05-28 11:17 GMT-03:00 Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl
>:

> Hi Hadley, Deirdre, Bernadette, Laufer,
>
> To report on action A., I just add a look at the use-cases 14 and 17, and
> also the rest of the document. The use-cases are fine but in the rest of
> the document I found this section to be rather vague :
> 4. General Challenges
>
> Extracted from all use-cases...
> Metadata
> Granularity
> Data Formats
> Data Vocabularies
> Data selection
> Data access
> Sensitive Data
> Data Usage
> Identification
> Industry-reuse
> Provenance
> Licenses
>
> Maybe we could add a one-liner summary next to the bullet points and also
> link these to the points found in section 5 ?
>
> Speaking about Section 5, I found that one to be too imprecise :
> R-PersArchiving
>
> * It should be possible to archive data *
>
> *Motivation:* DigitalArchivingofLinkedData<http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/master/usecasesv1.html#UC-DigitalArchivingofLinkedData>
>
> I know that to this point we don't have much clue about what should be
> precisely done there, we even still have to define the scope, but phrased
> as such I'm not sure this point brings anything to the use-cases. It sounds
> to me like having another requirement that reads "it should be possible to
> use data" would be as informative/useful - and we don't have that one. We
> can also wonder whether the metadata should be archived(able) too.
> I also don't see how we can have some requirement with "*Motivation:* ??"
> when we agreed (if I remember correctly) that all the requirement would be
> derived from our use-cases. We should get rid of all the "??" and ground
> all the parts of Section 5 to some of the use-cases from Section 3 (and/or
> the challenges derived from this section)
>
> Action B is done ;-)
>
> Action C : the document looks fine to me but AFAIK archivists define a lot
> more type of meta-data, though I could not find any list to share. I'll get
> back on that with people that can provide this list and add a link in the
> wiki page.
>
> Cheers,
> Christophe
>
>
> On 23 May 2014 16:12, Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We had a very productive meeting today — minutes to follow — but for
>> simplicity, I've put our group actions together here.
>>
>> This week, in addition to your own actions, it would be great if you
>> could:
>>
>> A.  Review the Use Case draft and be ready to vote on transitioning it to
>> first public working draft (FPWD) in next week's call. [1]
>>
>> Deirdre and Bernadette are still working on polishing it and adding bits
>> like the abstract, so be aware that it's not completely final.  But the
>> content should be stable enough for you to know if you're happy to publish
>> it or to comment via the mailing list.
>>
>> (It's probably worth reminding you that FPWD is just a signal to the
>> community to begin looking at the document.  It does not have to be final
>> or perfect at this stage. [2] )
>>
>> B.  Tell the vocabulary editors when you can join a call for the vocabs,
>> via this Doodle poll.  (If you're interested in the vocabs.)  This will be
>> a weekly call, covering both vocabularies. [3]
>>
>> C.  Review the Guidance on the Provision of Metadata page for the Best
>> Practices document.  Laufer would like you to comment on it, criticise it
>> or improve it (either on the mailing list or in the wiki itself). [4]
>>
>> D.  Comment on the email thread on data preservation.  Christophe and
>> Phil are looking for input. [5]
>>
>> Thanks a lot for a good week!  Looking forward to speaking soon.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>    Hadley
>>
>> [1]
>> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/master/usecasesv1.html
>> [2]  http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#first-wd
>> [3]  http://doodle.com/tpp2p8fvpmchx4s4
>> [4]
>> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Guidance_on_the_Provision_of_Metadata
>> [5]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2014May/0080.html
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Onderzoeker
> +31(0)6 14576494
> christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl
>
> *Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)*
>
> DANS bevordert duurzame toegang tot digitale onderzoeksgegevens. Kijk op
> www.dans.knaw.nl voor meer informatie. DANS is een instituut van KNAW en
> NWO.
>
>
> Let op, per 1 januari hebben we een nieuw adres:
>
> DANS | Anna van Saksenlaan 51 | 2593 HW Den Haag | Postbus 93067 | 2509 AB
> Den Haag | +31 70 349 44 50 | info@dans.knaw.nl <info@dans.kn> |
> www.dans.knaw.nl
>
>
> *Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!*
> http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/
>
> *e-Humanities Group (KNAW)*
> [image: eHumanities] <http://www.ehumanities.nl/>
>



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