- From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 09:42:59 -0300
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANx1PzxBZrN=5cKVmv0zZLAuyHJoa0vBTeMOHeVx5=43=jc39w@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Phil, Thanks a lot for your contribution! I'm gonna include the new evidences on our implementation and I'm gonna let you know when we have a new version. It is great that you could provide some evidences for data enrichment and APIs ;) Please, let me know if you have more suggestions! cheers, Berna 2016-11-04 10:55 GMT-03:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>: > Hi Berna, > > I've added a couple more reviews to the spreadsheet, from opposite ends of > the spectrum. One is an effort by one or two activists in an off-shore > island state (Guernsey) that is commendable in terms of what it achieves > given its origin; however, it doesn't score well (not surprisingly). At the > other end is datausa.io which is a highly professional aggregate and > visualisation site with serious funding. I reviewed this one in particular > as I thought it would be evidence for things that are likely to be missing > from simple portals, like enrichment. Another one that comes to mind is > http://opentrials.net/. I'll look at that when I get time (unless someone > beats me to it of course). > > The datausa.io site is not really a place where you'd go to get a > dataset. It's an 'infomediary' site but it does link back to the original > sources, most of which are US census datasets. So it scores badly on things > like metadata (I can't find any) but really well on the API stuff. > > HTH > > Phil. > > > On 29/10/2016 18:08, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote: > >> Hi Phil, >> >> Thanks a lot for your contribution! >> >> I created and shared a spreadsheet with you on drive [1]. You can use this >> to collect all your evidences and later on i'm gonna include them in the >> implementation report. I already included the evidence from CIARD Ring in >> your spreadsheet. >> >> Please, let me know if that is ok with you. >> >> Cheers, >> Berna >> >> [1] >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wKfwLhT1DCyuDtf_ >> oY6HwB3mzf_4P5LrxmasLWxIa-o/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> >> >> 2016-10-28 12:45 GMT-03:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>: >> >> Dear all, >>> >>> Following today's call, I wanted to have another go at reviewing a >>> dataset >>> for evidence gathering for the BPs. I looked at a dataset on the CIARD >>> Ring >>> site which is run by a group allied to the FAO. Specifically, I looked at >>> >>> http://ring.ciard.net/chinese-crop-germplasm-information-system-cgris >>> >>> My results are below >>> >>> I need to write to the folks who run the portal (I know one of them at >>> least) and ask some questions related to some of the later BPs but >>> there's >>> some usable data here I hope. >>> >>> I also wanted to know how long this would take me as I need to follow up >>> on my action-297 and write to folks to ask them to do the same. This took >>> me about half an hour. I imagine if I knew the dataset better I could >>> have >>> done it more quickly, but then I know the BPs pretty well s I don't need >>> to >>> consider that content in detail. My guess is that it would be hard for a >>> dataset owner/portal manager to do this is less than half an hour (and it >>> could easily take an hour). >>> >>> CIARD Ring is a *very* good data portal (the best I know of anywhere) >>> with >>> tons of metadata but even on this portal there are gaps in the metadata. >>> >>> I'll provide some more examples in the coming week. I can't currently >>> edit >>> the Google doc which is one reason for sending the info in this mail. >>> >>> HTH >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> 1. Pass >>> 2. Pass >>> 3. Pass >>> 4. Partial. No machine readable licence, user has to follow a link for >>> more info when you find actually it's all rights reserved. >>> 5. Pass - publisher with good level of human readable info, although no >>> PROV data as such. >>> 6. Fail >>> 7. Partial >>> 8. Fail >>> 9. Pass >>> 10. Pass >>> 11. Fail >>> 12. Pass >>> 13. Data is behind firewall but seems very likely pass. >>> 14. Fail (only RDF is provided) >>> 15. Pass >>> 16. Pass - this is a reference dataset >>> 17. Partial - you could download with SELECT * >>> 18. Partial - you could download a subset with a query >>> 19. Pass (Web page has embedded RDFa) >>> 20. N/A >>> 21. Pass >>> 22. N/A >>> 23. Pass >>> 24. Pass >>> 25. Pass >>> 26. Pass >>> 27. N/A >>> 28. N/A >>> 29. Pass >>> 30. Fail >>> 31. N/A >>> 32. Fail >>> 33. Need to ask >>> 34. Need to ask >>> 35. Pass >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- > > > Phil Archer > Data Strategist, W3C > http://www.w3.org/ > > http://philarcher.org > +44 (0)7887 767755 > @philarcher1 > -- Bernadette Farias Lóscio Centro de Informática Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 7 November 2016 12:43:53 UTC