- From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:34:40 -0300
- To: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Cc: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, SDW WG <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANx1Pzy1Q7-vJQ7jU1hFa1OLX_Zj6B6GtSs7v-mGCutephiiKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Dear Andrea, Thanks a lot for your comments on the FPWD of the DWBP document! After gathering some feedback from the community some changes were made and we're planning to publish a 2nd draft. The current version of the DWBP document is available on github [1] and it will be great to have your feedback about the changes made on the metadata section [2]. Note that now there are specific sections for Data Licenses, Data Provenance, Data Versioning and Data Quality. Kind regards, Bernadette [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html [2] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#metadata 2015-03-19 18:12 GMT-03:00 Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>: > Thanks a lot for your reply, Bernadette. > > I'm looking forward to reading the revised version of the BPs. > > Best, > > Andrea > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio > <bfl@cin.ufpe.br> wrote: > > Dear Andrea, > > > > Thank you very much for your comments on the DWBP document! We are > planning > > to restructure the section of best practices for metadata and your > comments > > will be very useful. Please see my comments inline. > > > >> > >> 1. BP-1 ("Document data") seems to mix two different requirements: > >> (a) publishing data documentation (metadata) > >> (b) publishing metadata in human-readable formats > >> Is this correct? > >> In such a case, shouldn't these be rather addressed by two different > >> BPs? The requirement of publishing metadata shouldn't necessarily > >> address *how* this is done. This would also be inconsistent with the > >> fact that the requirement about publishing metadata in > >> machine-readable formats is addressed by a specific BP (BP-2). > > > > > > Yes, it seems that BP1 is not clear. Originally, we had two distinct BP: > > Provide metadata and Provide metadata for humas and machines. Then, we > > decided to remove the general BP Provide Metadata and to keep one BP for > > metadata for humans and another one for BP for machines. We're gonna > review > > this structure. > > > >> > >> > >> 2. BP-2 ("Use machine-readable formats to provide metadata"), section > >> "Intended outcome": > >> "It should be possible for computer applications, notably search > >> tools, to locate and process the metadata easily, which makes it human > >> readable metadata, machine readability metadata." > >> (a) It is unclear why this "makes it human readable metadata". > >> (b) There's probably a typo in "[... ] machine readability metadata" - > >> shouldn't this rather be "[...] machine readable metadata"? > > > > > > Yes, this is not correct! We're gonna correct this sentence. > > > >> > >> > >> 3. BP-2 makes the point about the use of machine-readable formats for > >> data discovery via software agents, including search engines. It > >> points also to specific machine-readable metadata serialisations that > >> can be embedded in human-readable metadata, and that are currently > >> used by search engines to optimise discovery. However, I have two > >> questions on this: > >> (a) Shouldn't be a requirement for human-readable metadata to *always* > >> embed their machine-readable version? This also when machine-readable > >> metadata are available separately. I see a couple of use cases for > >> this - e.g., optimising discovery via search engines, existing browser > >> plug-ins able to read RDFa, etc. > > > > > > > > BP2 says that "Metadata in machine-readable formats must be published > > together with the data". In a way, it means that machine-readable version > > must always be available, but there is no relation with the > human-readable > > version. > > > > > >> > >> (b) Do you think that the requirement of being "discoverable" by Web > >> search tools should be extended to data? BP-12 partially address this, > >> but not explicitly. I'm asking since this issue may be relevant to the > >> SDW WG - see [2]. > > > > > > Again, I think the BP is not clear. The idea is that metadata may be > used to > > make data discoverable, i.e., it should be easy to discover the data and > not > > the metadata. In this sense, BP4 (Provide discovery metadata) complements > > BP2. > >> > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Andrea > > > > > > Cheers, > > Bernadette > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> ---- > >> [1]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/F2f_Barcelona > >> > >> [2] > http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Requirements#Content_need_to_be_crawlable.2C_then_able_to_ask_search_engine_or_other_service > >> > >> -- > >> Andrea Perego, Ph.D. > >> Scientific / Technical Project Officer > >> European Commission DG JRC > >> Institute for Environment & Sustainability > >> Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data > >> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262 > >> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy > >> > >> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/ > >> > >> ---- > >> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may > >> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official > >> position of the European Commission. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Bernadette Farias Lóscio > > Centro de Informática > > Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -- > Andrea Perego, Ph.D. > Scientific / Technical Project Officer > European Commission DG JRC > Institute for Environment & Sustainability > Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262 > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy > > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/ > > ---- > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official > position of the European Commission. > -- Bernadette Farias Lóscio Centro de Informática Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2015 13:35:32 UTC