Re: dwbp-ISSUE-211: Should we be more explicit about the use of vocabularies? [Best practices document(s)]

Hi Antoine,

Thanks again for your answer and suggestion! I agree that it was too
generic. I'm gonna update the document to reflect your proposal.

I understand that you don't like the sentence construct "It should be
possible...". However,  the BP template has the following description for
the intended outcome section: "What it should be possible to do when a data
publisher follows the best practice." So, I was trying to write the
intended outcome sections according to this.

Cheers,
Bernadette



2015-11-20 11:33 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

> Hi Bernadette,
>
> We're ok for the title and the "why", I believe!
> Thanks for making the updates on the document.
>
> About the "intended outcome", I'm not sure about the two last ones:
> [
> It should be possible for machines to automatically process the data
> within a dataset.
> It should be possible for machines to automatically process the metadata
> that describes a dataset.
> ]
> I mean, these are two respectable outcomes, but imo they don't connect
> well enough to the BP. These outcomes would be the same for more 'basic'
> BP, like one that would recommend to provide machine-readable metadata...
>
> Trying to add this dimension (and also trying to not commit to any
> specific type of metadata - I think we don't need this) I suggest to
> replace the two last outputs by:
> [
> It is easier and more efficient to design (and re-use) services to
> automatically process data and metadata when these use vocabularies shared
> among a wide range of datasets.
> ]
>
> What do you think?
> I'm sorry I'm not using the "It should be possible". I just can't get my
> head around that sentence construct...
>
> I hope this helps
>
> Antoine
>
> On 11/17/15 8:48 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
>
>> Hi Antoine,
>>
>> Thanks for your answer and your proposal. I am ok with keeping the reuse
>> aspect. I just updated the BP Re-use vocabularies [1] according to your
>> proposal. I also updated the Intended Outcome Section. Please take a look
>> and tell me if it is ok for you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bernadette
>>
>>
>> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVocabularies
>>
>>
>> 2015-11-12 6:42 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:
>> aisaac@few.vu.nl>>:
>>
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     This proposal is very reasonable to emphasize on "share". But again
>> I'm afraid that as for the other suggestions following last F2F, Bernadette
>> is throwing the baby with the bathwater. I.e. we can 'refer to' "share",
>> that doesn't mean that "share" should replace what was there before. I'm
>> really keep on keeping the "re-use" aspect.
>>
>>     This is my proposal:
>>
>>     [
>>     Re-using vocabularies increases interoperability and reduces
>> redundancies, encouraging re-use of the data.
>>     Shared vocabularies capture a consensus
>>     of the community about a specific domain.
>>     The re-use of shared vocabularies to describe metadata helps the
>> automatic processing
>>     of data and metadata.
>>     Shared vocabularies should be especially used to describe both
>> structural
>>     metadata as well as other types of metadata (descriptive,
>>     provenance, quality and versioning).
>>     ]
>>
>>     Note I'm also changing the order of Bernadette's suggestion to keep
>> it clear that re-using voc is good for data and (more specific aspects of)
>> metadata.
>>
>>     Finally if we implement this, imo we don't really need to change the
>> title of the BP, as per the other ISSUE:
>>     http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/212
>>
>>     Antoine
>>
>>
>>     On 11/10/15 11:20 PM, Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group
>> Issue Tracker wrote:
>>
>>         dwbp-ISSUE-211: Should we be more explicit about the use of
>> vocabularies? [Best practices document(s)]
>>
>>         http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/211
>>
>>         Raised by: Bernadette Farias Loscio
>>         On product: Best practices document(s)
>>
>>         I propose to change the Why section to be more specific about the
>> use of shared vocabularies. My proposal is below:
>>         "Shared vocabularies, i.e., vocabularies that capture a consensus
>>         of the community about a specific domain, helps to increase
>>         interoperability between datasets, encouraging reuse of the data.
>>         Shared vocabularies should be used to describe both structural
>>         metadata as well as other types of metadata (descriptive,
>>         provenance, quality and versioning). The use of shared
>>         vocabularies to describe metadata helps the automatic processing
>>         of data and metadata."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>> Centro de Informática
>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>


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