Fwd: RFC Words - Levels

Hi Laufer,

I agree with you that we should have more fine grained sets of best
practices. It is also important to review the BP to make sure that SHOULD
and MUST were used correctly.  IMO we should also discuss what type of
classification we'd like to have with the maturity model. I have some
questions about this:

The maturity model will be used to evaluate a single dataset or a set of
datasets?
Which main aspects should be considered for the evaluation?

Thanks!
Bernadette

2015-09-04 11:21 GMT-03:00 Laufer <laufer@globo.com>:

> Hi All,
>
> After our discussions about maintaining or not the RFC words and creating
> or not a mature model in conjunction with a set of BP levels, I grouped the
> BPs by RFC words:
>
> MUST
>     Best Practice  1: Provide metadata
>     Best Practice  2: Provide descriptive metadata
>     Best Practice  4: Provide structural metadata
>     Best Practice 10: Use persistent URIs as identifiers
>     Best Practice 12: Use machine-readable standardized data formats
>     Best Practice 21: Preserve people's right to privacy
>     Best Practice 26: Provide data up to date
>     Best Practice 29: Use a trusted serialization format for preserved
> data dumps
>
> SHOULD
>     Best Practice  3: Provide locale parameters metadata
>     Best Practice  5: Provide data license information
>     Best Practice  6: Provide data provenance information
>     Best Practice  7: Provide data quality information
>     Best Practice  8: Provide versioning information
>     Best Practice  9: Provide version history
>     Best Practice 11: Assign URIs to dataset versions and series
>     Best Practice 13: Use non-proprietary data formats
>     Best Practice 14: Provide data in multiple formats
>     Best Practice 15: Use standardized terms
>     Best Practice 16: Document vocabularies
>     Best Practice 17: Share vocabularies in an open way
>     Best Practice 18: Vocabulary versioning
>     Best Practice 19: Re-use vocabularies
>     Best Practice 20: Choose the right formalization level
>     Best Practice 22: Provide data unavailability reference
>     Best Practice 23: Provide bulk download
>     Best Practice 24: Follow REST principles when designing APIs
>     Best Practice 25: Provide real-time access
>     Best Practice 27: Maintain separate versions for a data API
>     Best Practice 28: Assess dataset coverage
>     Best Practice 30: Update the status of identifiers
>     Best Practice 31: Gather feedback from data consumers
>     Best Practice 32: Provide information about feedback
>     Best Practice 33: Enrich data by generating new metadata.
>
> We currently have two groups of BPs to guide the publisher.
>
> Maybe we could, from this two groups, make an exercise to define a more
> fine grained set of groups to, in some sense, assert some "quality"
> (mature) to a published dataset.
>
> What do you think about this?
>
> Cheers,
> Laufer
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>



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



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