Best Practices Document - Comments

Hello Bernadette,

First of all, thank you for your great efforts in updating the BP document.
Congratulations.

I have a couple of comments.

1. I think it is necessary to have a BP "Provide structural metadata". It
is very important to provide information that could help users to
understand the Dataset structure. I am not saying that we would recommend
any type of structure. But the publishers must clarify this information to
the consumers. As in the other metadata´s BPs, this one could be provided
in a human readable style or in a machine readable style. Could be in a
free text or could be in a standard form as recommended by CSVW, for
example.

2. In my opinion, "Provide data license information" is MUST.

3. We have a BP "Gather feedback from data consumers" where it is
recommended to provide means for consumers to provide feedback. I think
that we could recommend a BP "Provide feedback metadata" (I am not sure of
this title). I think that to gather and to inform the feedback are
different tasks and in this new BP we could link the BP to DUV, as the link
to DQV in BP "Provide data quality information".

4. I want to ask why the term being used for information given for humans
is "human understandable data" instead of "human readable data". Sorry
about this comment (I know these discussions are long) but if we use
machine readable I think we should use human readable. Or, if we decide to
use human understandable we should also use machine understandable.

Cheers,
Laufer


-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .