- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:02:35 -0700
- To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <56F439CB.2000708@lbl.gov>
Hi Berna, Thanks for resending this. We can close LC-3046 and LC-3048. I do still see issues with the identification section, but the original one pointed out in 3046 is taken care of. These are the issues: BP11, Use persistent URIs as identifiers of datasets is about having a persistent identifier for the dataset as a whole. BP12 is about identifiers within datasets. Yet, BP11 gets into detail about "locally unique identifiers". The paragraph after the Issue 3 note is irrelevant to that BP. I also think the table is too much. We should just link to a few references in footnotes and summarize the key points about them. I don't want to hit people over the head with links that they don't need to read to understand the concepts. LC-3047 still needs to be addressed. I think we need to make it more clear what this BP is about. It's really about data that gets updated periodically. Most experimental data, for example, is not like this. You run an experiment and then publish the data; you don't keep updating it, even if the thing the experiment was measuring continues to happen. The "how to test" section doesn't really make sense, either. All it does is verify that a revision was published. It needs to test whether data is out of date. It should compare the date the most recent version of the dataset, or the most recent dataset in a time series, was created and the date of the most recent copy available on the web, and they should match. On 3/24/16 9:43 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Caroline Burle* <cburle@nic.br <mailto:cburle@nic.br>> > Date: 2016-03-14 13:13 GMT-03:00 > Subject: Comments on Tracker > To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov <mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>>, > Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> > Cc: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group > <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>> > > > Annette, > > we are wondering if your comments on the Comment Tracker have been > addressed. Would you kindly check them, please? > > LC-3046 * Data Identification > Issue: to discuss about limiting this section to information that > applies to publishing *data*. > WG notes: This section was completed modified after this comment. > > LC-3047 Provide data up to date > Issue: to debate if the goal should be to adhere to a published > schedule for updates. > > LC-3048 Data enrichment > Issue: to discuss about enrichment yields derived data, not just > metadata. For example, you could take a dataset of scheduled and real > bus arrival times and enrich it by adding on-time arrival percentages. > The percentages are data, not metadata. > Issue: to discuss about the meaning of the word “topification”. > WG notes: this was reformulated by Annette. > > Thank you! Kind regards, > Bernadette, Caroline and Newton > > LC-3046 > https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3046 > LC-3047 > https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3047 > LC-3048 > https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3048 > > > > -- > Bernadette Farias Lóscio > Centro de Informática > Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Annette Greiner NERSC Data and Analytics Services Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2016 19:03:02 UTC