Re: DWBP - Best Practices - Review

I'm sure you're right, Laufer, in saying that there are whole areas that 
we have not covered. If we extended the WG by 2 years and worked on 
them, we might just cover those - and I dare say we'd find that there 
were yet more areas that we haven't covered too.

In other words, it could be an endless loop.

We have (at least) two other ways to break the cycle.

There's a wish list on the wiki - anyone can add 
to that at any time.

We could also include a short section in the doc called Further Work, 
making it clear that we know we haven't covered everything. You, Laufer, 
have begun such a list - good - I don't think we need be shy about 
saying there's stuff we haven't covered.

Fancy taking a shot at writing that section for the editors to consider?


On 19/04/2016 02:17, Caroline Burle wrote:
> Dear Laufer and Annette,
> thank you very much for your comments!
> We very much appreciate if we can keep this discussion and try to get
> into a resolution until next Friday.
> Kind regards,
> BP Editors
> On 18/04/16 19:40, Laufer wrote:
>> Hi, Annette,
>> Thank you for your response.
>> I am just recording that this is a thing that I am worried. I have to
>> put it in a review. The group has already voted to include these BPs
>> and it is a solved issue.
>> I gave examples in the e-mails prior to the voting. Things like how to
>> maintain synchronicity with versions, how to  choose vocabularies that
>> could be more suited depending on the datasets reused, how to merge
>> different reused datasets concepts, URI identification schemes, etc.
>> Reuse, imho, is a very sophisticated task, and I feel that we finished
>> the document just beginning what could be BPs for reuse, a very short
>> set.
>> I think we have no time to go deeper in these discussions. Again, just
>> recording this is my review.
>> Best Regards, Laufer
>> ---
>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>> .        .   . ..
>> .     ..       .
>> Em 18/04/2016 17:28, Annette Greiner escreveu:
>>> Hi Laufer,
>>> I hope the doc will end up being something that you can support
>>> fully. If you could offer some examples of things that someone who
>>> wants to reuse data should think about that are not covered by our
>>> other BPs, we could talk about whether we need to address them.
>>> -Annette
>>> On 4/18/16 9:02 AM, Laufer wrote:
>>>> Dear editors,
>>>> First of all congratulations.
>>>> I was pleased to read the document and to see that it covers a very
>>>> good set of concerns that someone has to think about if she wants to
>>>> establish a good communication process between publishers and
>>>> consumers of datasets. Besides that, the document deals with other
>>>> related concerns about identification, preservation, privacy,
>>>> enrichment, etc.
>>>> My single objection is still about the BPs that deal with the reuse
>>>> of data. I still think they are a very very small set of things that
>>>> someone who wants to reuse data should think about. We vote it. But
>>>> I have to comment this in my review. It makes me feel that we start
>>>> to talk about a thing that needs much more thinking and much more
>>>> best practices.
>>>> Some minor errors:
>>>> 1. The term "best practice" sometimes is written in lower cases and
>>>> sometimes in upper cases.
>>>> 2. The example of dataset used in the document has changed from
>>>> timetables to bus stops tables but in the file [1] "Example of
>>>> Dataset - Human readable" we have a mixed thing.
>>>> Thank you again to the editors and to all members of the group.
>>>> Best Regards, Laufer
>>>> [1] -
>>>> --
>>>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>>>> .        .   . ..
>>>> .     ..       .
>>> --
>>> Annette Greiner
>>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
+44 (0)7887 767755

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2016 08:32:16 UTC