Re: ISSUE-61: R-archiving appears to be out of scope. we must ask christophe, who put it in

Hi all,

while I agree that we shouldn't recommend on a particular format for data
dumps, there are benefits in recomending an archive format that allows for
storing data files (in any format) and also metadata along with the data.
Preserving metadata alongside the data is very important for digital
preservation. I know of two competing formats that could be useful for that
purpose:

BagIt
* IETF draft specification: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kunze-bagit
* Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BagIt
* Blog article about it: http://inkdroid.org/journal/2008/06/06/bagit/

Data package
* Draft specification: http://dataprotocols.org/data-packages/
* Blog article about it:
http://blog.okfn.org/2013/04/24/frictionless-data-making-it-radically-easier-to-get-stuff-done-with-data/

Even though they are similar in technical implementation, BagIt is more
focused on digital preservation and more widely used among digital library
practitioners (including, for example, the Library of Congess). On the
other hand, Data package aims at making open data easier to manipulate (the
so-called "frictioness data") and is more used by open data practitioners
(including, for example, the Open Knowledge Foundation).

Best regards,
Augusto Herrmann

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Ghislain Atemezing <
auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr> wrote:

> Hi all,
> [Following Max comments ] (*)
>
>
> By the way, I don’t think we should in any case recommend that data be
> dumped using a particular technology like JSON-LD. If we say anything, we
> should recommend dumps in a format that is appropriate, widely used and can
> be expected to be supported over a long timespan.
>
>
> +1. I am also in favor of not recommending a particular serializations for
> a dumped dataset. Well, although if there is a good resolution for a
> “suitable format” in publishing data, we can adapt it for the dumps as well.
>
> Best,
> Ghislain
>
> (*) Sorry again for not being able to follow all the rich discussions that
> you had yesterday :(
>