Re: Comments on Data on the Web Best Practices: BP-1 & BP-2

Dear Bernadette,

Thanks for giving me this opportunity, and sincere apologies for my late reply.

I've just reviewed the relevant sections, and I think that issues I
contributed have been at least partially solved.

Actually, I have some comments on the new version of the BP doc, but
I'll submit them when the 2nd draft is officially published.

Meanwhile, I just report a typo:


BP1, "Possible Approach to Implementation": a closing bracket is missing:

"[...] should be used to provide descriptive metadata (see Section 9.9
Data Vocabularies."


Cheers,

Andrea

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio
<bfl@cin.ufpe.br> wrote:
> Dear Andrea,
>
> As mentioned in my last message, we're planning to publish the 2nd draft of
> the DWBP document and it is really important to have your feedback about
> changes that were made based on your comments on the FPWD of DWBP document.
>
> If possible, please let us know if you agree with the proposed changes no
> later than next Friday.
>
> Thank you!
> Bernadette
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



-- 
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.

Received on Thursday, 18 June 2015 11:03:28 UTC