- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 14:27:49 +0200
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi everyone, > There will be questions :-) Starting with availability. Makx' PSI workshop list [1] includes: > > For availability, potential metrics that were mentioned were: > * Yes/no, maybe with explanation why the data is not available (privacy, security, archived, lost, not yet captured etc.) > * Open/restricted/registration, again possibly with explanation > * For access/re-use > * Indication of persistence and longevity Actually I'm going to use it to re-ask questions I've asked earlier: - should DQV seek to address/reflect whether and how general data BPs have been implemented or not. - should we focus on intrinsic characteristics of the dataset or also exclude extrinsic ones? Trying to make my point clearer, play the devil's advocate on some of the above availability point: - 'available yes/no' seems out of scope of the WG altogether: if we focus on data available on the web, then it's supposed to be available, isn't it? - 'Open/restricted/registration' and 'For access/re-use' seems to fit other areas of the best practices, especially the one regarding the availability of license metadata. It seems like extrinsic metadata. Is it related to quality? Cannot one say that a 'good quality dataset' is not available? What do you think? Antoine [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Apr/0023.html
Received on Friday, 8 May 2015 12:28:17 UTC