- From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:50:25 -0700
- To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, Yaso <yaso@nic.br>
- Cc: Ig Ibert Bittencourt <ig.ibert@gmail.com>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMFz4jjwi9EB8S1Hu4be2SGaH5=QJ_75wN9SiRbsXB+V=EmDHw@mail.gmail.com>
I added some proposed additional terms to the glossary: http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/glossary.html Annotation, CItation, Data Consumer, Data Producer, Feedback Cheers, Eric S On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote: > Annette, > > Great thoughts here, I've provided comments, see what you think :-) > > Eric > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> > wrote: > >> It's good to see some ideas getting put out there for these terms. I do >> have a couple of concerns with the definitions here. First, I think we need >> to avoid definitions that use the same term they are defining. The >> definition of "consumer" here is tautological, relying on the words >> "consumer" and "consuming". >> >> -- Good points, yes we must be vigilant! We need to make use of the > glossary big time. > > >> Second, I think the term "citation" suggests something narrower. In >> academia, if Alice writes a paper and Bob cites it, Bob is saying to the >> world that he used Alice's work. If Alice cited her own work in the work >> itself, it would be pointless. "Citation" doesn't cover the case of the >> originator of the work stating that someone else used it. >> >> -- I think the other case for citation is providing a link describing > how you want others to cite it. > > An awful lot of what we've been talking about is already defined in the >> annotations model [1]. For feedback, the current web annotations draft >> already covers that pretty well. Take a look at their motivations [2]. We >> might suggest additional motivations, but there are already "commenting", >> "editing", and "questioning". >> >> -- While the Annotation model does cover it in a very general way thus > giving rise to the concern that there might be large interpretations of how > I think of feedback solely relying on Annotations, I am attracted to the > SIOC feedback model because it was built specifically to represent feedback > in forums. By selecting a common model for feedback, I argue that an > explicitly declared vocabulary greatly increases the chances of making > dataset feedback more discoverable because consumers can correlate and > cross reference feedback from different dataset forums using a consistent > query pattern. The Annotation model is so general that cross referencing > forums represented in a variety of ways would make discovery of feedback > more difficult. > > >> I think that what we should be focusing on is usage annotations, possibly >> just an additional motivation for the annotations model. Usage annotations >> can be the same for the publisher and the re-user. In both cases, someone >> is creating an annotation outside the original work (outside the published >> dataset) that says that particular dataset was reused by someone else. So, >> if Alice publishes a dataset and Bob uses it in creating a visualization, >> which Carol views online, Bob needs a way to tell the world that he used >> Alice's data, so that Carol can see it and so that Alice can be made aware >> of it. Alice could make the same annotation as Bob in her role as a >> webizen; she needn't adopt her role as the original publisher to do so. >> There is no need to distinguish between publisher and consumer. Either way, >> Carol can see it and Alice is also aware of it. >> >> -- I agree that we should also use Usage annotations in the way that you > described. I agree about the blur between publisher and consumer in > situations like these. > > >> -Annette >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/ >> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#motivations >> >> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Ig Ibert Bittencourt <ig.ibert@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Yaso and Eric, >> > >> > Wonderful you've started the glossary. I would suggest some updates in >> the definition of the following concepts: >> > • Data Producer: this entity represents an agent (human or >> machine) in the role of a data producer responsible for producing data (or >> even the dataset) in any phase of the data life cycle. It is important to >> say the production of new data can happen through the consumption/reuse of >> old data; >> > • Data Consumer: this entity represents an agent (human or >> machine) in the role of a data consumer responsible for consuming data from >> one or more datasets. >> > • Data Publisher: this entity represents an agent (human or >> machine) in the role of data publisher responsible for publishing one or >> more datases. It is important to say that this role is different from data >> producer, although they can be owned by the same agent; >> > • Citation: Citations is an action performed by a citing entity >> to a cited entity, qualified/characterized as direct and explicit, indirect >> or implicit [1]. In the context of DWBP, it is a formal feedback >> (bibliographic reference in the form of published material as a book, >> paper, web page) performed by an agent (in the role of a data consumer or >> data publisher) to a dataset. >> > Please, let me know if you agree of not. >> > >> > [1] http://purl.org/spar/cito >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Ig >> > >> > 2015-04-23 12:33 GMT-03:00 <yaso@nic.br>: >> > Hi Eric! >> > >> > I'm glad you asked. I made a very rough draft and uploaded to my fork >> on github because the doc is still with no styling and proper IDs. I sent >> it to Phil and the editors to get some feedback, but had no answer till now. >> > >> > Basically, I picked the idea of that conversation at the f2f and >> threshed the details of the Data on the Web Life cycle proposed by >> Bernadette. The draft is at [1] and you can see it rendered at [2]. >> > >> > What I am proposing is that we use actions that transforms data in to >> something else, like a dataset or metadata, as turning points to divide >> whether someone is a publisher or a consumer. Furthermore, as a data >> creator can be also someone that collects data from others using software, >> like facebook or yandex, I propose that we focus on 3 "representations" of >> data: data (as raw data), dataset (as encoded file or structured dataset) >> or metadata (whatever is the format). >> > >> > Given this way of thinking the cycle of data on the web, data archiving >> techniques and data preparation or data planning are out of the scope of >> this WG, thought 303 pages and 404 are in. Data encoded in file formats is >> out of the scope also, but only if people involved with data mining and >> enriching wants. >> > >> > The idea still have to be polished, but I think it is a good way out >> for our abstractsss discussions to focus on actions performed to delineate >> concrete lines of definitions. >> > >> > I'm keen for the feedback of the WG. >> > >> > [1] https://github.com/yaso/dwbp >> > [2] http://yaso.is/dwbp/glossary.html >> > >> > >> > Cheers >> > Yaso >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Quoting "Eric Stephan" <ericphb@gmail.com>: >> > >> > Hi Ig, >> > >> > There are quite a bit of definitions floating around, I was wondering if >> > you needed help on this task. Please let me know. >> > >> > Eric S >> > >> > https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/174 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Ig Ibert Bittencourt >> > Professor Adjunto III - Instituto de Computação/Universidade Federal de >> Alagoas (UFAL) >> > Vice-Coordenador da Comissão Especial de Informática na Educação >> > Líder do Centro de Excelência em Tecnologias Sociais >> > Co-fundador da Startup MeuTutor Soluções Educacionais LTDA. >> >> >
Received on Friday, 24 April 2015 01:50:54 UTC