- From: Joost van Ulden via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 20:15:43 +0000
- To: public-sdwig@w3.org
> The UK's Geospatial Commission's case is that data needs to be "Q" (fit for some purpose?) before there's much point in making it findable or reusable. > > https://geospatialcommission.blog.gov.uk/2021/06/25/byte-ing-back-better-introducing-a-q-fair-approach-to-geospatial-data-improvement/ > > I am aware of counter arguments - one sector of UK's open data community pushed for people to put whatever data they had 'out there' with the hope/expectation that users would provide quality improvements. However, I do remember a similar challenge being made to TBL's "five stars" of (linked) open data - that they said nothing about data quality. Interesting. Thanks for sharing @PeterParslow. Data quality is a concern but could/should it be handled separately from FAIR? I see FAIR being overloaded a lot these days, and I suspect it's because there isn't a nicely packaged set of principles that cover all concerns, at least not yet. Quality and fitness for purpose can be separate concerns, can they not? As well, fitness for purpose pre-supposes that one knows the universe of applicability for a specific set of data - and I don't believe this is always the case. I think it's often enough to describe the limitations of the data, and let the consumer decide how fit it is for their purpose. Maybe I'm getting tripped up on semantics. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jvanulde Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1290#issuecomment-1010325505 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2022 20:15:45 UTC