Re: Text suggestions for recent comments

I agree with most of this, but I think the text for comment 6 creates a 
false dichotomy. It reads as though the two options for tracking usage 
are (1) voluntarily using the DUV and (2) requiring registration. I see 
no reason why DUV terms could not be used in gathering required 
registration information. Either way you ask a user to fill in a form 
reporting their usage. The difference is whether access to data is gated 
on that. If you are thinking of the voluntary usage of the DUV in terms 
of publishing one's own usage in metadata, that would not meet the needs 
of a publisher who wants to collect usage statistics. For someone who 
really needs to report statistics, finding such usages would be 
prohibitively difficult, and many users would either never publish a 
result or would publish but fail to learn and use the DUV in their 
metadata. I see lots of possibility for creating new tools that make it 
much easier to take advantage of the DUV, but there isn't yet a way to 
push usage information to the original publisher. Furthermore, whether 
data is collected from users voluntarily or is required for access, the 
user should be informed of the purpose of collecting the data and how it 
will be used.

-Annette


On 6/22/16 4:53 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> Thanks a lot for your suggestions and improvements!
>
> We're gonna update the document and send messages to the commenters 
> asking for their feedback.
>
> Cheers,
> Berna
>
> 2016-06-17 12:41 GMT-03:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org 
> <mailto:phila@w3.org>>:
>
>     As promised in today's meeting, I'd like to suggest some comments
>     and minor amendments to the proposals in the wiki [1]
>
>
>     Comment 1 - I agree with the proposal.
>
>
>     In Comment 2, Ivan asks for a reference to the CSVW work, which I
>     agree is good to add. The para chosen for the addition is from the
>     intro:
>
>     The Best Practices proposed in this document are intended to serve
>     a more general purpose than the practices suggested in, for
>     example, Best Practices for Publishing Linked Data [LD-BP] since
>     DWBP is domain-independent. Whilst DWBP recommends the use of
>     Linked Data, it also promotes best practices for data on the Web
>     in other open formats such as CSV.
>
>     The current proposal is to add a reference to the CSVW Primer -
>     good, but I think it needs a linking sentence so that we have:
>
>     ... DWBP recommends the use of Linked Data, it also promotes best
>     practices for data on the Web in other open formats such as CSV.
>     Methods for sharing tabular data, including CSV files, in a way
>     that maximizes the potential of the Web to make links between data
>     points, are described in the Tabular Data Primer
>     [[Tabular-Data-Primer]].
>
>
>     Comments 3, 4 & 5 - OK.
>
>
>     Comment 6.
>
>     I think Andrea makes a good point and it's a good hook for the
>     DUV. Indeed, the high frequency of data publishers who require
>     registration was a key motivation for the development of the DUV
>     in the first place. Reading the intro to the access section, where
>     it is proposed to address his point, I think it can go higher up
>     than suggested. And I also note that the first paragraph is a
>     little confused so I offer this alternative:
>
>     ===Begins===
>     <p>Providing easy access to data on the Web enables both humans
>     and machines to take advantage of the benefits of sharing data
>     using the Web infrastructure. By default, the Web offers access
>     using Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) methods. This provides
>     access to data at an atomic transaction level. This might be
>     through the simple bulk download of a file or, where data is
>     distributed across multiple files or requires more sophisticated
>     retrieval methods, through an API. The two basic methods, bulk
>     download and API, are not mutually exclusive.</p>
>
>     <p>For some data publishers, it is important to know who has
>     downloaded the data and how they have used it. There are two
>     possible approaches to gathering this information. First,
>     publishers can <em>invite</em> users to provide it, the user's
>     motivation for doing so being that it encourages the continued
>     publication of the data and promotes their own work. The Dataset
>     Usage Vocabulary [[Vocab-DQV]] provides a structure for doing
>     this. A second and less user-friendly approach is to require
>     registration before data is accessed. In this case, the publisher
>     should explain why and how information gathered from users (either
>     explicitly or implicitly) will be used. Without a clear policy
>     users might be fearful of providing information and thus the value
>     of the dataset is reduced.</p>
>
>     <p>In the bulk download approach, bulk data is generally...
>
>     === Ends ===
>
>     *Although* I would delete the second instance of the word bulk in
>     that existing para so it just reads: "In the bulk download
>     approach, data is generally pre-processed server side where
>     multiple files or directory trees of files are provided as one
>     downloadable file."
>
>     Comment 7 & 8 - OK.
>
>     HTH
>
>     Phil
>
>     For tracker, this is action-285
>
>
>
>     [1]
>     https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_the_last_call_working_draft
>
>
>     -- 
>
>
>     Phil Archer
>     W3C Data Activity Lead
>     http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
>     http://philarcher.org
>     +44 (0)7887 767755 <tel:%2B44%20%280%297887%20767755>
>     @philarcher1
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory