Re: Updates on BP Provide data up to date and BP Make feedback available

Oops, I must have been looking at dates with my eyes crossed. I was 
seeing 2016 as 2015.
Re the feedback BP, how about this?
"Consumers will be able to assess the kinds of errors that affect the 
dataset, review other users' experiences with it, and be reassured that 
the publisher is actively addressing issues as needed. Consumers will 
also be able to determine whether other users have already provided 
similar feedback, saving them the trouble of submitting unnecessary bug 
reports and sparing the maintainers from having to deal with duplicates."
-Annette

On 5/3/16 4:51 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
> Hi Annette,
>
> thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions! I updated the 
> doc and the corresponding commits are: BP Up to date [1] and BP 
> feedback available [2].
>
> I agree with most of your suggestions and I just have two comments:
>
> The first one is about the example of the Up to Date BP:
>
>
>     Example
>     I like the example, but there is some new text that is
>     problematic. " The issue date (|dct:issued|) of the dataset can be
>     used as the basis for the creation of new versions." I don't know
>     what you mean to say with that. If you are making a new version,
>     the original version will of course be used as the basis of the
>     new one, but that has little to do with the issue date or with
>     making sure the update frequency is adequate. "It is important to
>     note that new versions can be created when necessary, however the
>     publisher must ensure that the dataset will be updated according
>     to the predefined update frequency." This is another example of
>     the confusion between updating the available data and updating the
>     web publication. In the example RDF, the date for the previous
>     version is later than the date for the new version.
>
>
> I don't understand this part of your comment "This is another example 
> of the confusion between updating the available data and updating the 
> web publication. In the example RDF, the date for the previous version 
> is later than the date for the new version."
>
> The issue date of the new version (bus-stops-2016-05-05) is 2016-05-05 
> while the issue date of the previous version (bus-stops-2015-12-17) 
> is 2015-12-17.
>
> The other comment is about the Intended Outcome of the Feedback BP:
>
>     "Consumers will be able to assess the kinds of errors that affect
>     the dataset and be reassured that the publisher is actively
>     addressing issues as needed. Consumers will also be able to
>     determine whether other users have already provided similar
>     feedback, saving them the trouble of submitting unnecessary bug
>     reports and sparing the maintainers from having to deal with
>     duplicates."
>
>
> I like this, but I think we should mention something related to the 
> consumer's opinion/rating about a dataset. I think that feedback is 
> also important to tell others that it is worth using the dataset 
> rather than just to report errors. Does it make sense for you?
>
> What do you about this?
>
> "Consumers will be able to assess the kinds of errors that affect the 
> dataset as well as consumers ratings and opinions, and be reassured 
> that the publisher is actively addressing issues as needed."
>
>
> cheers,
> Berna
>
> [1] 
> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/88256c8a815b1c677096bbdf2e76faecebe23b67
> [2] 
> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/729fa706ac4bf5d3165121a1032798de19f671dd
>
>
>
> -- 
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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