Re: General feedback on the document

Hi Annette,

I proposed to change because IMO using "should" would be strong enough, but
I understand your point! In this case, I propose to keep "must" instead of
"should" and then we postpone this discussion for later when we discuss the
proposal of maturity levels for BP.

@Christophe, are you ok with this?

Thanks!
Bernadette

2015-06-11 15:37 GMT-03:00 Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>:

> I disagree with this change. I imagine it will get re-assessed as we
> consider moving to a BP document that provides levels of compliance, but I
> must say that I find making the data machine readable an extremely low bar
> for calling something compliant with any sort of best practice for web
> publication. I would not happily vote to publish a spec that has this only
> as a should. I suspect that there is some confusion here about whether our
> document affects the ability of users to publish data online. We should be
> clear that we are not going to alter the ability of individuals to publish
> data in any particular form. If they want to publish data quickly and
> without meeting all the requirements for compliance with the BP document,
> they can still do that; they just can’t claim that they have published in
> accordance with our criteria.
> -Annette
> --
> Annette Greiner
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> 510-495-2935
>
> On Jun 11, 2015, at 7:08 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Christophe,
>
> 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 [1].
>
> In the following, you can find some comments about your feedback on the
> FPWD.
>
>
>> # Overall points
>> The document concerns more data publishers than it concerns consumers.
>> This also seems to be reflected by the composition of editors/contributors,
>> there should be more data consumers jumping in and adding BPs that matter
>> to them.
>> "Data must be available in machine readable" -> only should, must is way
>> too strong. Some data consumers may want to have access to data that is not
>> machine readable (e.g. scanned old document) and not being only restricted
>> to their machine-translated counterparts (e.g. OCRed old document)
>>
>
> During the discussions about the audience, the group agreed that
> publishers will be our primary audience. In this case, best practices
>  should be employed by data publishers instead of data consumers. However,
> both publishers and consumers will benefit from this. Then, I suggest to
> keep publishers as the main primary audience for our BP.
>
> Concerning the "Data must be available in machine readable", It was
> changed for "should".
>
>
>


-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------