Re: DWBP - Best Practices - Review


Hi, Phil, 

I am worried about the endless loop too. We talked about this in the
last meeting. 

As I said, I was pleased to read the document and to see that we have a
good set of BPs. My opinion is that the document should contain a
minimum set of BPs that could help to enhance the use of data published
on the web. I think the document is a good minimum set. 

I do not want to make the group waste time with this discussion. We
voted this issue. I just pointed it because it is a review and I wanted
to record my concern about expanding the list of BPs for the specific
topic of reuse. 

As I can understand (please, correct me if I am wrong), this final draft
will be published and could receive comments from all the community.
Then it could be edited to generate the CR. If there were no more strong
claims about my concern, we will need to do nothing about this for the
CR. If there were, we may adopt the solutions you pointed, or write some
text in the conclusion, or another thing proposed by the editors. 

Best, Laufer 

. . . .. . . 
. . . ..
. .. . 

Em 19/04/2016 5:31, Phil Archer escreveu: 

> 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 [1] - 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?
> Phil.
> 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] -
> [2]
> --
> . . . .. . .
> . . . ..
> . .. .
> --
> Annette Greiner
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory



Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2016 15:26:17 UTC