- From: Steven Adler <adler1@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:48:17 -0400
- To: Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
- Cc: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>, Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF25D847A9.9328820B-ON85257E14.004BBAC9-85257E14.004BD4EE@us.ibm.com>
I like that approach, but that 5-star is not a Data Quality rating system
which I still think we need as part of BP.
Best Regards,
Steve
Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
|------------>
| From: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl> |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Steven Adler/Somers/IBM@IBMUS |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Eric Stephan |
|<ericphb@gmail.com> |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|03/25/2015 09:53 PM |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Re: The 5 stars path |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
BTW, speaking about stars and feedback we may want to have a look at the 5
star scheme for community engagement from Tim Davies:
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/engagement/
We could probably do something with it, if only linking to it somewhere.
Cheers,
Christophe
--
Sent with difficulties. Sorry for the brievety and typos...
Op 24 mrt. 2015 07:18 schreef "Steven Adler" <adler1@us.ibm.com>:
Rating a dataset is only valuable if records within the dataset have
ratings whose sum or average validates the dataset rating. That is,
there has to be provenance to the ratings.
Best Regards,
Steve
Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
Inactive hide details for Bernadette Farias Lóscio ---03/24/2015 10:11:38
AM---Hi all, Thanks for the great discussion!Bernadette Farias Lóscio
---03/24/2015 10:11:38 AM---Hi all, Thanks for the great discussion!
Fro Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
m:
To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Laufer <laufer@globo.com>,
Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>, DWBP WG <
public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Dat 03/24/2015 10:11 AM
e:
Sub Re: The 5 stars path
jec
t:
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 15:32:54 UTC