Capturing the discussion (was Re: NY Property Tax Explorer)

Hi, Makx,

Yes, the name of the group has a lot of interpretations. We still have
discussions about scope.

Yes, I think data generation is out of the scope of the WG.

No, I did not say to 'only' consider metadata in the BPs.

I think we must have the common BPs for all domains of data, independently
of the different formats of distribution. Metadata is one of them (and
extremely important).

We should talk about different forms of distributing data and metadata:
human readable, machine readable, embedded, separated. Each one with
different approaches of implementation.

We have to talk about URIs, preservation and the other BPs listed in the
document.

Best Regards,
Laufer



Em

Em sábado, 4 de abril de 2015, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> escreveu:

> All,
>
>
>
> Reading some of this discussion around scoping this work, it sounds a bit
> like this group is now focusing primarily on Best Practices for *Metadata*
> on the Web.
>
>
>
> Laufer wrote:
>
>
>
> *For me, the central thing that we can point is about metadata. We can
> talk about data too, but I think that each one of the cases will be very
> particular and probably will be treated by a particular WG.*
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> *But I think that if we entered in all techniques of consuming/harvesting
> data and the way people should or must publish to facilitate these things,
> we will have to take the whole world in our hands.*
>
>
>
> I do agree that trying to come up with best practices for publication of
> all kinds of data formats and ‘genres’ – text, numbers, sound, image,
> video, maps, 3D models, online games – is probably not something we can do
> without involving the experts in those fields, maybe as Laufer writes, in
> separate WGs. However, is it now established that this group won’t talk
> about the primary data at all, but just limits its work to metadata?
>
>
>
> But then again, if we ‘only’ consider metadata, there is the same can of
> worms waiting. There is often a close connection between the data format or
> genre and the metadata, both in terms of the metadata model and in how
> metadata is encoded and embedded, as in ODF, PDF, MP3, JPEG and many, many
> domain-specific formats. So, I am not sure that, by not talking about how
> people should publish data in specific formats on the Web but only about
> how people should publish metadata about data in specific formats, we make
> our life any easier.
>
>
>
> What I do think is that if we abstract from data formats and genres, our
> best practices are going to be on the level of “provide metadata in
> machine-readable format”.  I am not saying this is not useful advice, but
> is it really what we would call ‘best practice’?
>
>
>
> And then, we make statements like “*mark as an error instances where
> vocabularies such as [DC-TERMS] and [VOCAB-DCAT] could have been used but
> were not*” in http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ProvideMetadataStandardized. Do
> we really want to say that it is an error to provide metadata using
> schema.org, XMP, EXIF, CKAN etc. etc., irrespective of what the data is
> and how it is intended to be used?
>
>
>
> Makx.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .