Re: dwbp-ISSUE-25: Review requirements: R-SelectHighValue and R-SelectHighDemand

Hi Deidre,

while I agree that these (high value and in demand) are the most important
reasons a dataset has been selected for publication, are these the only
ones?

I think an important one too is the ease and cost of publication. That is,
a dataset might not be the most high value or in most demand, but if it's
very easy to publish at little to no cost (e.g. the information systems
already provide an adequate csv output and there's a default open data
licensing policy), why not just publish it? This would seem to be inline
with the "open data by default" policies currently being implemented by
various countries and recommended by the G8.

Just my 2c, and sorry if this has already been discussed as I've not been
able to participate in the group properly.

Best regards,
Augusto Herrmann


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think this can fly!
>
> Antoine
>
>
> On 8/29/14 12:51 PM, Lee, Deirdre wrote:
>
>> Following last week's discussion, I propose the following updated
>> descriptions for these requirements. As Antoine pointed out, DWBP WG offers
>> guidelines for publishing data on the web POST selection of what data to
>> publish. However we can recommend that an indicator of why the data was
>> selected be included with the data.
>>
>> R-SelectHighValue
>>
>>      Datasets selected for publication should be of high-value, /which
>> should be indicated in a quantifiable manner/property./
>>
>> R-SelectDemand
>>
>>      Datasets selected for publication should be in demand by potential
>> users, /which should be indicated in a quantifiable manner/property./
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
>> Sent: 22 August 2014 12:32
>> To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: dwbp-ISSUE-25: Review requirements: R-SelectHighValue and
>> R-SelectHighDemand
>>
>> Hi Deirdre,
>>
>> Coming back to old mail, and trying to progress towards closing these
>> issues...
>>
>> I agree on capturing obvious requirement, especially if we can derive
>> some requirements from them/
>>
>> Besides the difficulty of measuring them (even for HighDemand I'm not
>> sure this is doable in an objective manner) my problem is about the target
>> point in the data publication process. The requirements are about
>> "selecting" datasets. If we're in position to write a dcat:Dataset entry
>> with some quality properties for a dataset, it probably implies that the
>> selection of the dataset has already been made. So strictly speaking the
>> requirement doesn't really impact the vocabularies. Unless it's re-written
>> to indicate that it's about selecting vocabularies, and keeping track of
>> the motivations for doing so, in order to guide later consumption.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> On 8/4/14 4:30 PM, Lee, Deirdre wrote:
>>
>>  > Just because requirements are obvious, doesn't mean we shouldn't
>>
>>  > include them :) Measuring what 'high-value' is may be subjective, but
>> 'Datasets selected for publication should be in demand by potential users'
>> is measurable. However not sure if not publishing data because there is no
>> immediate/obvious demand is good best practice either...
>>
>>  > Do these requirements make sense in the context of quality vocabulary?
>>
>>  >
>>
>>  >
>>
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>
>>  > From: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker
>>
>>  > [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
>>
>>  > Sent: 03 June 2014 23:19
>>
>>  > To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
>>
>>
>>  > Subject: dwbp-ISSUE-25: Review requirements: R-SelectHighValue and
>>
>>  > R-SelectHighDemand
>>
>>  >
>>
>>  > dwbp-ISSUE-25: Review requirements: R-SelectHighValue and
>>
>>  > R-SelectHighDemand
>>
>>  >
>>
>>  > http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/25
>>
>>  >
>>
>>  > Raised by: Antoine Isaac
>>
>>  > On product:
>>
>>  >
>>
>>  > Could #20 (Radar Parlamentar) be grouped with #12 (Dados.gov.br)? It
>> seems the former is actually a usage case of the latter.
>>
>>  >
>>
>>  >
>>
>>  >
>>
>>
>