Re: Working on FPWD, more to do

Maybe the quality vocabulary is restricted only to the data.

I think that the quality of the publishing as a whole takes into account
all metadata, and issues like presevation, etc.

ODI has certificates that, in some sense, has a kind of maturity model.

Best,
Laufer

Em quinta-feira, 5 de fevereiro de 2015, Steven Adler <adler1@us.ibm.com>
escreveu:

> I don't see a conflict.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for "Makx Dekkers" ---02/05/2015 12:25:53
> PM---Can’t see the embedded picture.]"Makx Dekkers" ---02/05/2015
> 12:25:53 PM---Can’t see the embedded picture.
>
>
>
>    From:
>
>
> "Makx Dekkers" <mail@makxdekkers.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mail@makxdekkers.com');>>
>
>    To:
>
>
> Steven Adler/Somers/IBM@IBMUS
>
>    Cc:
>
>
> "'Public DWBP WG'" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','public-dwbp-wg@w3.org');>>
>
>    Date:
>
>
> 02/05/2015 12:25 PM
>
>    Subject:
>
>
> RE: Working on FPWD, more to do
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Can’t see the embedded picture.
>
> A problem with going for a maturity model instead of best practices is
> that *Best Practices* is in the name of the WG, and that the mission
> statement says we’re going to provide guidance that *will take two forms:
> a set of **best practices** that apply to multiple technologies, and
> vocabularies currently missing but that are needed to support the data
> ecosystem on the Web*.
>
> Makx.
>
>
> *From:* Steven Adler [mailto:adler1@us.ibm.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','adler1@us.ibm.com');>]
> * Sent:* Thursday, February 05, 2015 6:10 PM
> * To:* Makx Dekkers
> * Cc:* 'Public DWBP WG'
> * Subject:* RE: Working on FPWD, more to do
>
>
> The benefit of a maturity model is that we don't have to define for others
> what the best practice in any given situation is.  We can provide between 5
> and 7 levels of maturity and allow every reader to determine for themselves
> where they are today, what they want to achieve, and what steps they are
> willing to undertake to achieve a higher level of maturity.
>
> IBM open sourced the Data Governance Council Maturity Model in 2010.  Here
> are the categories:
>
>
>
> The complete model is available here:
> *http://www.infogovcommunity.com/resources*
> <http://www.infogovcommunity.com/resources>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for "Makx Dekkers" ---02/05/2015 03:11:37
> AM---I also like Steve’s approach, but it brings me back to an]"Makx
> Dekkers" ---02/05/2015 03:11:37 AM---I also like Steve’s approach, but it
> brings me back to an earlier question: What is *best* practice?
>
>
>    From:
>
>
> "Makx Dekkers" <*mail@makxdekkers.com*
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mail@makxdekkers.com');>>
>
>    To:
>
>
> "'Public DWBP WG'" <*public-dwbp-wg@w3.org*
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','public-dwbp-wg@w3.org');>>
>
>    Date:
>
>
> 02/05/2015 03:11 AM
>
>    Subject:
>
>
> RE: Working on FPWD, more to do
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> 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*
> <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/* <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) 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*
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.
>
>

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