- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:49:37 -0700
- To: Deirdre Lee <deirdre@derilinx.com>, Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
I agree On 6/27/16 11:13 AM, Deirdre Lee wrote: > Hi, > > I suggest https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/251 has been > addressed through subsequent versions of the BP doc and can be closed? > > Cheers, > > Deirdre > > > On 31/03/2016 23:48, Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group > Issue Tracker wrote: >> dwbp-ISSUE-251: [Best practices document(s)] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/251 >> >> Raised by: Annette Greiner >> On product: Best practices document(s) >> >> Annette still has some concerns about the Data Preservation BPs [1]. >> I think it is important to discuss these issues with the group and >> try to find a solution for this. >> >> BP Use a trusted serialization format for preserved data dumps >> To the extent that this is in scope, it is covered under the BP about >> using standardized formats. We could add a note to that mentioning >> the value for preservation. I don’t think this needs to be a separate >> BP. >> >> BP Update the status of identifiers >> To the extent that this is in scope, it should be covered under >> versioning or unavailability. What are “preserved” datasets? Are they >> available on the web? If not, it is out of scope. If they are, then >> they are versions. >> >> BP Assess dataset coverage, is still written in the context of >> archiving data, which we have agreed was out of scope. It is valuable >> for the point that datasets should have minimal dependencies on >> external entities that may not be preserved. It needs to be rewritten >> to be about that rather than about assessing a dataset for its value >> in an archive. >> >> >> [1] >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Mar/0231.html >> >> >> > -- Annette Greiner NERSC Data and Analytics Services Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Monday, 27 June 2016 21:50:08 UTC