W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > November 2016

Re: Europeana API as an evidence for the DWBP

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 09:36:07 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1Pzxh7trGJagXwGxAzCURYGV0No7DJ07JdeNOLZMaDNgxng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Antoine,

Thanks a lot for your message and your review on my report! I'm sorry for
taking so long to answer your message, but I had to travel a lot in the
last weeks.

I agree with you that it is better to consider the Europeana Data Service
rather than just the API.
In this case, which link should I use to refer to the "Europeana Data

I read your comments and I agree with most of them. A reviewed version of
the report is available [1].  I'm planning to include Europeana in the DWBP
implementation report, so please let me know if you agree with this new
version of the evaluation.

kind regards,


2016-10-30 19:39 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

> Hi Bernadette,
> Thanks. In fact your effort shows good and bad points:
> - it's hard to collect all the details when one is not very close to the
> dataset
> - it's good that you contact people and nag them ;-)
> I've tried to add some comments to the form. And here's where the lack of
> time and generality of BPs hits. For many I was not sure that what I was
> thinking of would change a 'fail' into a 'pass'. So I've just put comments
> ina  new column, letting you judge - though for some BPs I'm quite
> affirmative that the API would pass.
> Also, I've generalize my response to include the linked data service. It
> becomes difficult to separate the LOD from a more 'traditional' API when
> one is built around the other, and both are on the same namespace. And even
> if our LOD service is less mature, we still intend it to be a recognition
> that some of the LOD recommendations are indeed BPs that we want to follow,
> and thus can be counted as 'implementation' (in the wider sense) of the
> specified BPs.
> So maybe it is better then to consider a wider 'Europeana Data service'
> item than just the 'traditional' API.
> Actually the various services we have at Europeana can also be seen as a
> token that some of us at Europeana do agree with some (not all!) of the
> points raised in the blog posts Pieter just sent. Even if that's another
> story - the point right now is that it's much better to consider our
> complete data offer not just one API.
> Best,
> Antoine
> On 27/10/16 20:19, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
>> Hi Antoine,
>> I hope everything is fine with you! We are still collecting evidences for
>> the DWBP and I was considering to include the Europeana API as an evidence.
>> I was taking a look on the Europeana Labs site and I made a first report
>> about the API [1]. It would be great if you could take a look! Please, let
>> me know if you agree with the evaluation and feel free to complement or to
>> make changes.
>> Feel free also to include other evidences.
>> Thanks a lot!
>> Bernadette
>> [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mRVp8Vdudepk68AjQbhN
>> oZnLU-0-vH_4fVug_J-hCxo/edit?usp=sharing
>> [2] http://labs.europeana.eu/
>> --
>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>> Centro de Informática
>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------

Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2016 12:37:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:57 UTC