Proposals for Annette's comments to be considered before publishing the last working draft

Hi Annette,

Thanks a lot for your feedback and the great discussions about the DWBP
document!

We already resolved a lot of your comments [3], but we still have some to
discuss. We'd like to ask you to take a look in the following comments [3]
and tell us if you agree with our proposals described below:

23 (Introduction):

Phil made the native-speaker review. Phenomenon was removed. We propose to
keep the examples [1].

27 (Context): Eric helped us to rewrite the diagram description:

The following is a composite diagram illustrating the anatomy of a
published and acessible Web dataset. Data values correspond to the data
itself and may be available in one or more distributions, which should be
defined by the publisher considering data consumer's expectations. The
Metadata component corresponds to the additional information that describes
the dataset and dataset distributions, helping consumers manipulate and
reuse the data. In order to allow easy access to the dataset and its
corresponding distributions, multiple dataset access mechanisms can  be
available. Finally, to promote the interoperability among datasets it is
important to adopt data vocabularies and standards.

39 (Sensitive data):

How to test section:

Check if the dataset includes references to other data that is unavailable
in a human-readable way.
Check if a legitimate http response code in the 400 or 500 range is
returned when trying to get unavailable data.

56 (Subsets for Large Datasets)

We'd like to ask you to rewrite the intended outcome because it should be
about "What it should be possible to do when a data publisher follows the
Best Practice". It would be better to not have very long intended outcomes.

64 (feedback):

Remove the sentence from the introduction: "In order to quantify and
analyze usage feedback, it should be recorded in a machine-readable format.
"

65 (feedback):

Why:

"Giving feedback to data publishers contributes to improving the quality of
published data, may encourage publication of new data, ..."

Approach to implementation:

"Provide data consumers with one or more feedback mechanisms including, but
not limited to: a registration form, contact form, point and click data
quality rating buttons, or a comment box for blogging.

In order to quantify and analyze feedback received from consumers, store
feedback in machine-readable. The Dataset Usage Vocabulary [VOCAB-DUV
<http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#bib-VOCAB-DUV>] is desigend specifically
for this purpose.

How to test:

Check if there is at least one feedback mechanism available for data
consumers.

67 (data enrichment):

Why:

Enrichment can greatly enhance processability, particularly for
unstructured data. Under some circumstances, missing values can be filled
in, and new attributes and measures can be added. Publishing more complete
datasets can enhance trust, if done properly and ethically. Deriving
additional values that are of general utility saves users time and
encourages more kinds of reuse. There are many intelligent techniques that
can be used to enrich data, making the dataset an even more valuable asset.

Intended Outcome:

We'd like to ask you to rewrite the intended outcome because it should be
about "What it should be possible to do when a data publisher follows the
Best Practice". It would be better to not have very long intended outcomes.

68 (glossary)

Locale parameters: A locale is a set of parameters that defines specific
data aspects, such as language and formatting used for numeric values,
dates and geographic locations.

Machine-readable: A format in a standard computer language (not natural
language text) that can be read automatically by a computer system.
Traditional word processing documents and portable document format (PDF)
files are easily read by humans but typically are difficult for machines to
interpret. Formats such as XML, JSON, NetCDF, RDF or spreadsheets with
header columns that can be exported as CSV are machine readable formats.

This definition of machine-readable was proposed by Phil and it is from [2].

69 (license):

Could you contact Renato Ianella? Do you have any updates about this
comment?

------------------------

Comments 61, 62 and 63 were not addressed yet :( We need help from the
group to resolve them.

kind regards,
BP Editors

[1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#intro
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_data
[3]
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comments_to_be_considered_before_publishing_the_last_working_draft
-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------