Re: Re: [coders] Last call working drafts for data on the web best practices

Thanks a lot Annette! I just updated the wiki table [1].

cheers,
Berna

[1]
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_the_last_call_working_draft

2016-06-16 20:56 GMT-03:00 Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>:

> Forwarding for documentation of commenter approval.
>
> -Annette
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [coders] Last call working drafts for data on the web best
> practices
> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:10:29 -0700
> From: David Skinner <deskinner@lbl.gov> <deskinner@lbl.gov>
> To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
>
> I like it! Thanks.
>
> On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Annette Greiner < <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
> amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> I took a stab at reworking some of the enrichment BP. Take a look at the
>> diffs here and let me know if they address your concerns.
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/agreiner/dwbp/commit/ce1b1a8c03cd1b6017f029ad77f41c86f8f9c86e
>> (above line 3898)
>>
>> https://github.com/agreiner/dwbp/commit/540ed3b236068858936d9a03d7c8218945f609d7
>>
>> -Annette
>> P.S., I'm hoping to issue a pull request today.
>>
>> On 6/3/16 1:37 PM, David Skinner wrote:
>>
>> Hi Annette,
>>
>> Most requested is one metric that people easily get, but more broadly
>> it's a value proposition between the data stakeholders. There is not room
>> in the best practices to spell out quantitatively what enrichment is, what
>> are the units, etc. but making data demonstrably better (more valuable) is
>> indeed what I am driving at.
>>
>> Since this is a web best practices document it's probably fine to stop
>> there. This issue is important especially for web however as a foothold for
>> collaboration. Stakeholders will want to know how valuable a data set is
>> for logistical and resourcing decisions. Which data is ok on tape? Which
>> data is worth cross-indexing? Etc. Cost-share is also important. If data is
>> valuable to multiple stakeholders they may be able to split the resourcing
>> costs.
>>
>> -David
>>
>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> Thanks again for doing this! I just wanted to follow up on your question
>>> at the end, about enrichment being demonstrable. Am I right in thinking you
>>> mean to suggest that the prioritization of enrichments should be driven by
>>> what demonstrably adds value to the dataset, e.g., what is most commonly
>>> requested by users?
>>>
>>> -Annette
>>>
>>> On 6/2/16 12:30 PM, David Skinner wrote:
>>>
>>> HI Annette,
>>>
>>> First, I'm really impressed. There is some great stuff there. Are you
>>> going to NUFO next month?
>>>
>>> I didn't read it all (mostly in 4,6,16,20,29+), but...
>>>
>>> 1) The best practice topics cover a lot of the areas I think are
>>> important. I did not find much missing. Good coverage.
>>>
>>> 2) Reading more closely in a couple of sections I have more interest in
>>> I have some suggestions below.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> IMO Topic 8.13 is a little too focused on automated methods for "filling
>>> in missing values". I like the summary:
>>>
>>>
>>> *Enrich your data by generating new data from the raw data when doing so
>>> will enhance its value. *
>>> but the text does not really address the "enhancement of value" part. It
>>> also seems weighted toward interpolation of data values as opposed to
>>> "generating new data". One way to get that cross would be to add
>>>
>>> *Other examples include visual inspection to identify features in
>>> spatial data and cross-reference to external databases for demographic
>>> information. *[ *Lastly, generation of new data may be demand-driven,
>>> where missing values are calculated or otherwise determined by direct
>>> means. Measured application of these techniques informs the degree and
>>> direction of data enrichment*]
>>>
>>> Do you think it's worth emphasizing that enrichment should be
>>> demonstrable? I see this as a QA issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, folks,
>>>>
>>>> I’ve been heavily involved with the W3C working group for Data on the
>>>> Web Best Practices, and we’re at a phase where it’s important for us to get
>>>> comments from the community. These documents should be of interest to
>>>> anyone who posts data to the web. We have just published a last call
>>>> working draft of our Data on the Web Best Practices document, the Dataset
>>>> Usage Vocabulary, and the Data Quality Vocabulary.
>>>>
>>>> These deliverables are the outcome of two and a half years of
>>>> collaborative effort from the Working Group. We believe the Best Practices
>>>> document and vocabularies are complete, and would love to hear your final
>>>> comments before they become a W3C Candidate Recommendation (BP doc) and
>>>> Working Group Notes (vocabs). We are also eager to hear how you are
>>>> implementing, or plan to implement, the Data on the Web Best Practices.
>>>>
>>>>         • The Data on the Web Best Practices document offers advice on
>>>> how data of all kinds – government, research, commercial – can be shared on
>>>> the Web, whether openly or not. The underlying aim is to make data
>>>> intelligently available, maximizing the likelihood of its discovery and
>>>> reuse. The provision of a variety of metadata, the use of URIs as
>>>> identifiers and multiple access options are key to this.
>>>>         • The Dataset Usage Vocabulary offers a framework in which
>>>> citations, comments, and uses of data within applications can be
>>>> structured. The aim is to benefit data publishers by enabling assessment of
>>>> the impact of their efforts to share data, and to benefit data users by
>>>> encouraging the continued availability of data and the visibility of their
>>>> own work that uses it.
>>>>         • The Data Quality Vocabulary offers a framework in which the
>>>> quality of a dataset can be described, whether by the dataset publisher or
>>>> by a broader community of users. It does not provide a formal, complete
>>>> definition of quality, rather, it sets out a consistent means by which
>>>> information can be provided such that a potential user of a dataset can
>>>> make his/her own judgment about its fitness for purpose.
>>>>
>>>> Please send any comments or examples of how you are using the Best
>>>> Practices to public-dwbp-comments@w3.org until June 12th. All feedback
>>>> is welcome and will be responded to.
>>>>
>>>> We look forward to hearing from you!
>>>> -Annette, for the W3C Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group
>>>>
>>>> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Berkeley
>>>> Lab Coders Group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to coders@lbl.gov
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> coders+unsubscribe@lbl.gov
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/a/lbl.gov/group/coders?hl=en
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Annette Greiner
>>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Annette Greiner
>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> -David (from my phone)
>



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