- From: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:52:34 +0100
- To: public-reconciliation@w3.org
I have made a first attempt at solliciting feedback in the VIVO community, which hosts a number of OpenRefine reconciliation endpoints: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vivo-community/QoSU5Pwf2YY I have also created a dedicated tag to group existing OpenRefine issues which require some work on the API itself: https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22reconciliation+API+design%22 Feel free to join the effort! Antonin On 7/20/19 7:15 PM, Antonin Delpeuch wrote: > Hi all, > > We have already identified some possible improvements to reconciliation > in the past discussions (such as global properties or scores broken down > in multiple features). I think it would be good to gather this sort of > feedback more systematically, by asking and users and service providers > to let us know what they would like to change. > > I realise it is not always easy to determine the scope of these "pain > points", especially as an end user. Should a particular problem be fixed > in OpenRefine itself, in the definition of the API, in a particular > reconciliation service, or even in the data exposed by this > reconciliation service? Users are not always aware of the boundaries of > responsibilities behind the scenes. > > For instance, we have recently received these comments in the OpenRefine > bug tracker: > > https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/issues/2083 > > I think this is extremely valuable and it would be great to get other > reports in the same spirit, even if not all the comments are relevant > for our work on the API. We can then triage them to the appropriate > project and identify the ones that are in scope for us. > > I am not sure how to conduct such a campaign for feedback though. We > could set up a web survey, but that would probably constrain the sort of > feedback we get to the narrow frame that we pre-define (and we would > contribute to the ambiant "survey fatigue"). I think it would be > feasible to just request some free text feedback on various mailing > lists and then analyze and triage the results manually, given that I am > not anticipating hundreds of replies. > > We can also analyze a lot of feedback that is already public: for > instance, I can think of reconciliation-related issues in the OpenRefine > bug tracker, on the OpenRefine mailing list and potentially on other > platforms? > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > > Antonin > > > > >
Received on Monday, 22 July 2019 14:52:57 UTC