Re: some comments from people I work with

Hi Annette,

Thanks a lot ! Having this external feedback is really important for us! My
comments are inline.


I got a few comments on the BP doc from people I work with today. I asked
> them to take a look at BPs 16 and 17 and see if the distinction was clear.
> They found the two of them very confusing. One did understand the
> formal/informal distinction after first guessing that it was about use vs.
> reuse. One noted that it was also confusing to have numbered examples that
> have different numbers than the BPs.
>

I took a new look on these BP and I don't agree that they are confusing
(when we look to the examples, the difference is more clear). I talked with
Antoine during the F2F and he doesn't agree either. I suggest to include a
note in the next draft of the document asking for feedback about this. What
do you think?


> One person also felt that the multiple formats BP should perhaps only
> apply when a dataset is likely to need translation into multiple formats.
> Making data available in multiple formats struck her as being burdensome
> and unlikely to be done.
>

We identified several use cases with the requirement for multiple formats
[1]. Considering this, I think we should keep the BP. Besides,  I'm sure
that some BP will be more useful for specific groups. I think it is also
difficult to imagine the cases when a dataset needs translation into
multiple formats.

>
> They also noted that the grammar needed attention.
>

Yes, I agree! We are aware about this ;)

Cheers,
Berna

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-FormatMultiple



>
> I hope this is helpful,
> -Annette
>
> --
> Annette Greiner
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>
>
>


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