W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > January 2015

Re: Best Practice 4 (Document Metadata) - I agree to suppress it

From: Joao Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:36:10 -0200
Message-ID: <CAFWj3C93ofkymjvSbbW1UJpsMRbJX_J-tDHnGzqK27xGUBk9uA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Cc: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Dear Laufer, Bernadette and all,

I agree with Laufer's conclusion, and support the decision to remove BP4.

best regards,
João Paulo


On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:
> Hi, Bernadette,
>
> DBpedia documents a lot of things like applications, use cases, different
> ways of accessing data using sparql, credits, etc. But it is a documentation
> for humans.
>
> What I think is that a vocabulary as DCAT should be the responsible of
> pointing to these artifacts and the metadata related to them.
>
> So when in BP1 we say to use DCAT, I think we are saying: "document what
> metadata is being provided". If each of the artifacts has a vocabulary, so
> the vocabulary documentation is responsible for documenting the metadata.
>
> BP2 asserts to provide metadata for humans. I think that this includes the
> documentation for humans. What is to provide metadata for humans if you
> don't document it?
>
> For me, BP4 can be derived from BP1 + BP2 + BP3.
>
> Cheers,
> Laufer
>
>
>
> 2015-01-20 11:16 GMT-02:00 Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>:
>
>> Hi Laufer,
>>
>> Thanks for your message! My comments are inline.
>> >
>> > The BP3
>> >
>> > "Use standard terms to describe metadata - Metadata should be provided
>> > using
>> > standard vocabularies for greater interoperability and discoverability."
>> >
>> > already suggest that a user should use vocabularies.
>>
>> yes! I agree!
>>
>> >
>> > BP1 (provide metadata) talks about the catalogs and I think that the
>> > documentation about what metadata is provided should be in these
>> > catalogs.
>>
>> I think that the Provide Metadata BP is more general and later on it
>> will be specialized by other BP.
>>
>> >
>> > So, I think that BP1 and BP3 cover BP4. I do not know if the intention
>> > of
>> > BP4 was to call attention to code lists, but I think that if this would
>> > be
>> > necessary, this info can be in section 7.4.
>>
>> The Document metadata BP should be rewritten to become more general,
>> i.e., not just vocabularies should be documented. In this case, what
>> else should be documented when talking about metadata?
>>
>> cheers,
>> Bernadette
>>
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Laufer
>> >
>> > PS - again about sequential numbering as id - I do not like referring to
>> > BPs
>> > in these way. If we suppress BP4, this won't be true because we will
>> > have
>> > another BP4.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > .  .  .  .. .  .
>> > .        .   . ..
>> > .     ..       .
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>> Centro de Informática
>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 18:36:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:31 UTC