Re: General feedback on the document

Hi Annette, Bernadette,

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?
If we have only "should" BPs then that will make it for a rather weak set
of recommendations, so let's keep "must" at least for this core point ;-)

But I still understand the point people (don't remember who it was) wanted
to make. Is a scanned image machine readable ? We already had that
discussion on the readable aspect some time ago...
Keep a "must" on machine readable we have to ensure that, eg, archives that
expose scanned images can still do it in a way that complies with what the
document recommends. It wouldn't be good if we imply that all the scans
must be OCRed in order to become machine readable.


> Thanks!
> Bernadette
> 2015-06-11 15:37 GMT-03:00 Annette Greiner <>:
>> 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 <>
>> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

DANS, Anna van Saksenlaan 51, 2593 HW Den Haag
+31(0)6 14576494

*Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS/KNAW)*[image:] <>

*e-Humanities Group (KNAW)*
[image: eHumanities] <>

*World Wide Semantic Web community*

Received on Friday, 12 June 2015 06:06:25 UTC