- From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 14:08:48 -0300
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANx1PzxZJss3gKqnVZa5zxBNpOrZnbpKirsJBYAf48_bkztftg@mail.gmail.com>
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 > > -- Bernadette Farias Lóscio Centro de Informática Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2016 17:09:41 UTC