- From: Deirdre Lee <deirdre@derilinx.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:17:05 +0000
- To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <54D3A591.2090107@derilinx.com>
Hi all, Good discussion...and I'm wondering if we've come back to the link with the quality vocabulary.. Adding a maturity model approach to BPs is like adding another dimension - a quality dimension. Like the example Makx described with metadata having different levels and what is possible with each level. Could these levels be cross-referenced with a quality vocabulary? I'd also like to draw your attention to the Open Data Maturity Model that Leigh Dodds is working on: http://theodi.org/blog/developing-an-open-data-maturity-model Cheers, Deirdre On 05/02/2015 13:11, Eric Stephan wrote: > I really like the idea of the maturity model Steve shared, it would be > nice to categorize BPs as Annette and Bernadette have shared. In the > interest of getting this draft DWBP document out the door, if this is > the direction we are heading would it be reasonable to put a footnote > that indicates some general information about our thoughts about a > future maturity model/categorization system in the draft DWBP? > > Based on Steve's experience working out a maturity model may take some > time. A footnote for this draft would allow us as a working group to > work out the details of what we'd ultimately like to do. > > Eric S > > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio > <bfl@cin.ufpe.br <mailto:bfl@cin.ufpe.br>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I like the idea of having different levels of maturity and > Chistophe's idea about having sites implementing DWBP practices. > > Iagree with Makx that "we don’t tell people what they MUST or > SHOULD do, we provide advice that they can follow or not, > depending on their objectives, resources etc." In this case, I > think we don't need to use the RFC terms. > > I am reviewing the document again and I saw that some BP are > really general and others are more specific (and maybe more > diffcult to implement). As Annette, I was thinking about using > stars to classify BP, however instead of stars we can use other > type of classification. General BP that are more simple and > contribute less for data reuse could be classified as level 1 and > BP that may contribute more for data reuse are level 2, for example: > > BP Provide data documentation - level 1 > BP Provide data documentation in multiple languages - level 2 > BP Use standardized terms to define metadata - level 2 > > BP Provide data in a machine-readable format - level 1 > BP Provide data in multiple machine-readable format - level 2 > > Then, maturity levels can be measured according to the levels of > BP that were implemented. For example: if you implement all BPof > level 1 than you are in the first level of maturity (ex: GOOD). A > good exercise could be to specify what is expected in each one of > the maturity levels. > > Cheers, > Bernadette > > > 2015-02-05 8:45 GMT-03:00 Christophe Guéret > <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl > <mailto:christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>>: > > Hi all, > > +1 ! Would it be also a good/doable idea to implement to sites > which implements the BPs ? > That could be another indication of their maturity / success. > We could maybe issue a call for implementation to gather the > names ? > > Christophe > > > On 5 February 2015 at 12:37, Laufer <laufer@globo.com > <mailto:laufer@globo.com>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I like the idea of listing costs and benefits. > > In respect to the term Best Practice, for me is a practice > that is best for the consumer: a developer or a final user. > > A publisher can publish data the way she wants. It is the > Web. But I think we want practices that we call Best > because they create an environment with a commom > understanding (and some commitments), with a semantic that > could create an environment where data could be consumed > in an easy way, by humans and machines (humans, called > developers). > > Best, > Laufer > > Em quinta-feira, 5 de fevereiro de 2015, Makx Dekkers > <mail@makxdekkers.com <mailto:mail@makxdekkers.com>> escreveu: > > I also like Steve’s approach, but it brings me back to > an earlier question: What is **best** practice? > > In a way, a maturity model describes what is good, > better, best practice as you move up the ladder. But > how does someone (us in this case) determine what is > good, better, best? > > As far as I can see, we try to define best practice > based on our personal opinions – of course backed by > our individual and collective knowledge and experience > – but we don’t seem to consider any type of metrics or > arguments that justify why something is better > practice than something else. > > I posed that question earlier on BP#1 > http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#metadata. I think > that a statement like “in an open information space, > metadata is essential” is an opinion, but one that > needs to be qualified, especially because you could > argue that in the current Web environment this has > been demonstrated **not** to be true. Data can be > discovered and re-used even without metadata as long > as it is harvested by a search engine; actually, in > the current environment of the open Web, a landing > page with good SEO is probably a better way of > creating high visibility than DCAT metadata. > > On the other hand, if you want to build a catalogue of > datasets like http://datahub.io/, or want your > datasets to be listed on such a portal, then of course > metadata is the way to go to enable harvesting. > > So, thinking further on Steve’s maturity model, we > could have levels like: > > Put your data on the Web and > > 0.Do not provide any information about your data. If > you don’t, your data can only be found by people who > know about it, so you don’t encourage wide re-use – > NOT SO GOOD (but of course, someone might have good > reasons to keep their data out of the spotlight) > > 1.Provide a landing page. This allows the information > to be picked up by search engines. If you’re doing > some smart SEO in addition, it will make your data > will make it visible, facilitating more re-use – BETTER > > 2.Provide metadata that describes the data. This may > increase visibility on search engines (e.g. using > schema.org <http://schema.org>) but it is really > essential if you want your data to be visible on > portals like the DataHub; these portal services > require metadata to be available for harvesting – BETTER > > 3.Provide both a landing page and standardised > metadata: this makes your data visible through search > engines and allows your data to be included in data > portals which maximises visibility and re-use – BEST > > Such a ladder gives advice on what to do and why: what > happens if you do and what happens if you don’t. > > In that way, we don’t tell people what they MUST or > SHOULD do, we provide advice that they can follow or > not, depending on their objectives, resources etc. > > Makx. > > *From:*Steven Adler [mailto:adler1@us.ibm.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 04, 2015 9:18 PM > *To:* Eric > *Cc:* Annette Greiner; Bernadette Farias Lóscio; Phil > Archer; Public DWBP WG > *Subject:* Re: Working on FPWD, more to do > > I feel a little nervous about weighing in here but > here goes. I am OK with removing normative statements > in this version of the BP document and I appreciate > the desire to describe rather than prescribe > practices. But I also feel that we need to get more > specific about our descriptions in future versions of > the document. An approach we can take in that regards > is to develop our descriptions in a Maturity Model > framework, which plots different levels of observed > behaviors across increasing levels of maturity, allow > the readers to discover for themselves how their own > practices compare to other levels of maturity and > decide where they are and what they want to achieve. > > > > -- > . . . .. . . > . . . .. > . .. . > > > > > -- > Onderzoeker > +31(0)6 14576494 <tel:%2B31%280%296%2014576494> > christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl > <mailto:christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl> > > *Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)* > > DANS bevordert duurzame toegang tot digitale > onderzoeksgegevens. Kijk op www.dans.knaw.nl > <http://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 <mailto:info@dans.kn> | www.dans.knaw.nl > > > *Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!* > http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/ > > *e-Humanities Group (KNAW)* > eHumanities <http://www.ehumanities.nl/> > > > > > -- > Bernadette Farias Lóscio > Centro de Informática > Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- ---------------------------------------- Deirdre Lee, Director Derilinx - Linked & Open Data Solutions Web:www.derilinx.com Email:deirdre@derilinx.com Tel: +353 (0)1 254 4316 Mob: +353 (0)87 417 2318 Linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/ Twitter: @derilinx
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 17:57:43 UTC