Re: The 5 stars path

Hi all,

Thanks for the great discussion!

I like the idea of having a star rating discussion, but we need to be aware
that publishing data on the Web is more than just publishing data and
metadata. It also concerns issues like data access and feedback.

I've been thinking a lot about this rating system and it would be great to
consider all aspects related to data on the Web (ex: data format, metadata,
identifiers, data access, feedback, versioning...), but I'm bot sure if
this is the best choice. Maybe, we can have a rating system based just on
data and metadata, which is similar to the initial proposal of Phil.

Cheers,
Bernadette

2015-03-22 18:38 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>:

> Wow what a wonderful thread to read.  Thank you Phil!  Many many thanks
> for this wonderful note of clarity!
>
> >>if Eric and Annette can provide similar examples for NetCDF that would
> be terrific (I'm out of my depth here).
>
> Yes I think we can show this quite easily.  Just off the top of my heads.
>
> NetCDF:
>    - is an open format for storing multi-dimensional data streams [NETCDF]
>    - can be annotated with self describing metadata (called attributes)
>    - has existing conventions for representing different forms of data.
> E.g. CF convention.
>    - has a CF vocabulary [CFNAMES] for curated climate and forecasting
> terminology.
>    - In addition the climate community within the Earth System Grid (ESG)
> has adopted fully documented protocols [CMIP5] to show how regional and
> climate model datasets must be organized so that they can be inter-related
> to support regional and global climate studies.
>   - Leverages existing ISO standards used in the geospatial, dublin core,
> and metadata communities.
>    - Finally an ontology was developed by NASA JPL called SWEET [SWEET],
> there is previous research showing how the CF terms can inter-related.
>
> I would submit that even without the ontology in terms of open data, the
> climate community is already at 5 star.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
> References
>
> [NETCDF] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetCDF
> [CFNAMES]
> http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-standard-names/28/build/cf-standard-name-table.html
> [CMIP5] http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/
> [SWEET] https://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> We are in full agreement.
>>
>> One of my hopes for this WG is that we can indeed lead people to publish
>> formats like CSV in the best way (i.e. with good quality metadata) without
>> them feeling somehow inferior.
>>
>> If that leads us to define our own star rating system, I wouldn't mind.
>> Something like:
>>
>> * It's available on the Web in an open format with a declared licence
>> (anything less is all but useless).
>>
>> ** As level 1 with good quality discovery metadata (we might refer to the
>> DCAT Application profile work as an example).
>>
>> *** All the above plus structural metadata in the relevant format (e.g.
>> CSV+ for CSV, VoID for RDF etc).
>>
>> This doesn't include quality metrics (which it should), and contact
>> details (which it should) - but they might be defined at level 2?
>>
>> Maybe a start anyway.
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>> On 22/03/2015 13:50, Laufer wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, Phil.
>>>
>>> What I want to reinforce is that it would be nice if we could make clear
>>> in
>>> the document that 5 stars LD (or OD?) is not a scale of a dataset that is
>>> well published in the web. We can have, for example, a "CSV dataset" (3
>>> stars) more well published than a "LD dataset" (5 stars). Or, maybe, we
>>> can
>>> avoid using the 5 stars when what we want to say is that a dataset is
>>> being
>>> published in a CSV format.
>>>
>>> If we say that one dataset is 3 stars and other is 5 stars, people have
>>> the
>>> idea that the 5 one is better than the 3 one (as in reviews or hotels,
>>> for
>>> example).
>>>
>>> We probably will not define our own scale but I hope that our set of BPs
>>> could help people to publish a  "Well Published Data on The Web".
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Laufer
>>>
>>> Em domingo, 22 de março de 2015, Christophe Guéret <
>>> christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl');>>
>>> escreveu:
>>>
>>>
>>>  +1!
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent with difficulties. Sorry for the brievety and typos...
>>>> Op 22 mrt. 2015 08:47 schreef "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>:
>>>>
>>>>  I've just been reading through Friday's minutes and I see that this was
>>>>> the hot topic of the day. As ever, I'm sorry I wasn't able to be there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me add my 2 cents.
>>>>>
>>>>> LD forms a small part of the available data on the Web. It would be
>>>>> silly of us to push for everyone to convert their data into perfectly
>>>>> linked 5 star data before they make it available publicly or behind a
>>>>> pay-wall of some kind.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we *can* do IMO is:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Promote the publication of human readable metadata as Laufer has
>>>>> described;
>>>>>
>>>>> - promote the publication of machine readable metadata and then show
>>>>> how
>>>>> this can be (and is) done with RDF using DCAT as an example;
>>>>>
>>>>> - promote the publication of structural metadata which, for CSV at
>>>>> least, we have a very clear route - use the CSV on the Web work;
>>>>>
>>>>> - if Eric and Annette can provide similar examples for NetCDF that
>>>>> would
>>>>> be terrific (I'm out of my depth here).
>>>>>
>>>>> - We can leave it to the Spatial Data on the Web WG to handle spatial
>>>>> stuff (as they are leaving some of their generic issues to this group).
>>>>>
>>>>> As an aside, the CSV WG has resolved its issues now and is expecting to
>>>>> publish pretty much the stable version of its specs in the first week
>>>>> of
>>>>> April.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you publish data in your favourite format + structural metadata in
>>>>> whatever format goes with that (and the CSV WG is using JSON for its
>>>>> metadata) then you are providing a route through which your users can
>>>>> readily create 5 star data if they so wish. They may or may not use LD
>>>>> themselves but the concept behind it is, I hope, clear enough to
>>>>> readers?
>>>>>
>>>>>   From what I've read of Friday and the list since then, I dare t hope
>>>>> this is in line with the general mood of the WG?
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20/03/2015 18:09, Laufer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank, you, Eric.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abraços,
>>>>>> Laufer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-03-20 12:31 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Laufer and Bernadette,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I raised an issue relating to this asking the question can we use 5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> star
>>>>>
>>>>>> as a metric and not a path?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/148
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eric S.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> bfl@cin.ufpe.br
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Hi Laufer,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the message! It is a very useful explanation!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I fully agree with you: "In this dataset publishing I can see the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> idea of
>>>>>
>>>>>> publishing metadata and using standard vocabularies, but is not a LD
>>>>>>>> dataset."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMHO, we can use vocabularies to publish metadata, but we are not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>
>>>>>> linked data, i.e., there are no links between resources.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also agree that "we should differentiate the idea of a Best
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Practice of
>>>>>
>>>>>> a non LD dataset of the idea of an implicit Best Practice to go to a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LD
>>>>>
>>>>>> dataset, that is what the 5 stars scale says.".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we have a BP whose implementation proposes the use of the RDF
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> model to
>>>>>
>>>>>> publish data, then we are moving towards the 5 stars. It is important
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>> note that, publishind data using the RDF model may be just one of the
>>>>>>>> proposed approaches for implementation, i.e, we may show other ways
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> publishing data without using RDF.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Bernadette
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2015-03-20 11:32 GMT-03:00 Laufer <laufer@globo.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will start my comment using an example:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Someone publish a page where there are links to 2 files:
>>>>>>>>> a csv file with a dataset;
>>>>>>>>> a text file that explains the structure of the dataset, in natural
>>>>>>>>> language (metadata).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the page there are a lot of metadata provided in natural
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> language, as
>>>>>
>>>>>> for example, an overview of the dataset, license, organization,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>
>>>>>> creator, rights, etc...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the same time, the page has an embedded dcat instance using rdfa
>>>>>>>>> where there are info about the dataset, the distribution, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What I want to say is that we have here the metadata concept mixed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>
>>>>>> semantic web concepts, and it is a way of publishing data that, if
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>
>>>>>> things are well described, could be very useful to the society.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In this dataset publishing I can see the idea of publishing
>>>>>>>>> metadata
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>> using standard vocabularies, but is not a LD dataset.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What I was discussing in the last meeting is: will we support in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> document the idea that the best way to publish is LD. I am not
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> saying that
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am against or not the idea. I am favorable to LD. But we should
>>>>>>>>> differentiate the idea of a Best Practice of a non LD dataset of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>
>>>>>> of an implicit Best Practice to go to a LD dataset, that is what the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5
>>>>>
>>>>>> stars scale says.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe is too much care with the words, sorry about this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Laufer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>>>>>>>>> .        .   . ..
>>>>>>>>> .     ..       .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>>>>>>>> Centro de Informática
>>>>>>>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ----------------
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil Archer
>>>>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>>>>
>>>>> http://philarcher.org
>>>>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>>>>> @philarcher1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Phil Archer
>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>
>> http://philarcher.org
>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>> @philarcher1
>>
>
>


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