Re: Best Practices Document - Comments

Hi  Bernadette,

I think that your proposal for a "BP: Provide feedback information" is ok.

I have doubts about the title because it does not indicate clearly that the
BP is to provide information about the feedback that had already been
gathered, and not to provide the feedback itself. Consumers provide
feedback and the Publisher provides information about that feedback. Maybe
"Provide information about feedback".

I think Eric and Sumit could comment more about this, as they are the
editors of DUV.

Thank you.

Cheers,
Laufer


2015-05-18 16:39 GMT-03:00 Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>:

> Hello Laufer,
>
> Thanks for your comments! My comments are below.
>
> 2015-05-18 11:34 GMT-03:00 Laufer <laufer@globo.com>:
>
>> Hello Bernadette,
>>
>> First of all, thank you for your great efforts in updating the BP
>> document. Congratulations.
>>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I agree with you! Im gonna include a new BP in the metadata section
> "Provide structural metadata".
>
>
>>
>> 2. In my opinion, "Provide data license information" is MUST.
>>
>
> There is ongoing discussion about the use of the RFC2119 keywords. If
> we're gonna use these keywords, then I think we should evaluate each one of
> the proposed BP.
>
>
>>
>> 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".
>>
>
> Yes, I like this idea. This is also a good way to link with DUV. In the
> following, a suggestion for the BP (feel free to make changes):
>
> BP: Provide feedback information
> Feedback information should be described by metadata
>
> Intended outcome:
> It should be possible for humans to have access to information that
> describes feedback on a dataset given by one or more data consumers.
> It should be possible for machines to automatically process feedback
> information about a dataset.
>
> Possible Approach to Implementation
> The machine readable version of the feedback metadata may be provided
> according to the vocabulary that is being developed by the DWBP working
> group , i.e., the Dataset Usage Vocabulary.
>
> How to Test
> Check that the metadata for the dataset itself includes feedback
> information about the dataset.
> Check if a computer application can automatically process feedback
> information about the dataset.
>
> Evidence
> Relevant requirements: R-UsageFeedback
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I changed the term because of the discussions that we had before about
> this. For me its also ok to use machine readable (in fact, i prefer machine
> readable). I'm gonna replace for machine readable and let's see if someone
> else disagrees.
>
> Cheers,
> Bernadette
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Laufer
>>
>>
>> --
>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>> .        .   . ..
>> .     ..       .
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>



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