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

Hi Bernadette,

Thanks!

I'm not sure the sentence forms in template has been crafted to be exactly followed... As long as a sentence is clear and elegant it should be alright, I think. But well, I'm not the editor :-)

Cheers,

Antoine

On 11/26/15 10:25 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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> <mailto: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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Friday, 27 November 2015 11:54:39 UTC