Re: BP Evidence example

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------