[publicdata-eu] Next steps for PublicData.eu requirements

Thu Jan 13 13:48:13 UTC 2011

Will: I *fully agree* that we should circulate this in public as soon
as possible to gather feedback from the public. I also agree that it
would have been nice to draft a set of Use Case Scenarios and put them
online and to do this iteratively in public. The reasons I didn't do
this were:

  * I was directed to put this material on the private grips.punkt.at LOD2 wiki
  * Last year we were focusing on gathering input from the
questionnaire, which took quite a bit of time and attention to draft
and to get right
  * Last but not least I was very busy with other stuff at the end of
the year, and though I meant to draft something to put in public after
we spoke, all my attention was absorbed doing the two items above

When I say "it was decided", I mean there was a pre-existing,
apparently quite well-defined process for how this would work, I
presume arranged by those leading WP1. I have to admit I do not
*fully* understand all aspects of the requirements process. Don't
shoot the messenger. ;-)

What do others on this list think of putting the Use Case Scenarios
online for public comment as soon as they are at a stage we would
consider publishable? This would also give us an incentive to polish
them up to a state we would consider publishable quite quickly. Also
we could gather ideas for things which we might be missing or might
have overlooked, and suggestions about how we might be able to do
things better.

Pros/cons to doing this?

All the best,

Jonathan

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:11 PM, William Waites <ww at eris.okfn.org> wrote:
> Hi Jonathan, I remember this survey and doubtless there is some
> useful information in the results. But the results of the survey
> are not use cases or requirements. It might be possible to glean
> some from within the text of the results.
>
> As far as "it was decided" I remember suggesting that we circulate
> a use case template in the same style as done with W3C groups to
> solicit actual concrete use cases, and this suggestion was well
> received, in fact you had said you were going to do just that. Now
> I hear that "it was decided" not to do that. Not sure when or by
> whom it was decided...
>
> So I'm not sure where the use case scenarios that we have come
> from.  That is not to say that they are unreasonable or unlikely,
> just that they're made up by the consortium not by the public and
> maybe we might uncover some interesting other use cases that we
> hand't thought of if we asked people what they would want to do
> with the thing. Then again, maybe we wouldn't.
>
> That's all...
>
> -w
>
> * [2011-01-13 00:32:03 +0100] Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org> écrit:
>
> ] Will: we received around 180 responses about what people want from
> ] PublicData.eu as part of the survey which we circulated at the end of
> ] last year [1]. The results of this are now available in a PDF attached
> ] to the following wiki page:
> ]
> ]   https://grips.punkt.at/display/LOD2/OGD+Stakeholder+Survey+2010
> ]
> ] I think this was the main mechanism by which it was decided we would
> ] be collecting feedback from prospective users about what people want
> ] from PublicData.eu. That said I would very much like to put the Use
> ] Case Scenarios that we draft out for public comment as soon as
> ] possible. I brought this up on a recent call, but several consortium
> ] partners expressed reservations about making them public in their
> ] current state. I would at least like to put *some* of the material
> ] we've drafted out on lod2.okfn.org if possible. Perhaps the brief
> ] descriptions of the use case scenarios to start off with. I agree with
> ] you that soliciting for feedback early and often is a good way to go.
> ]
> ] What do others think?
> ]
> ] All the best,
> ]
> ] Jonathan
> ]
> ] [1] http://lod2.okfn.org/2010/12/02/publicdata-eu-survey-open-for-two-more-weeks/
> ]
> ] On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:03 PM, William Waites <ww at eris.okfn.org> wrote:
> ] > Does this mean we've abandoned the strategy of making a public
> ] > solicitation of use cases and requirements to try to find out what
> ] > people might actually want to use such a beast for in favour of just
> ] > cleaning up what has been produced so far in the confluence wiki?
> ] >
> ] > -w
> ] >
> ] > * [2011-01-12 19:47:35 +0100] Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org> écrit:
> ] >
> ] > ] Friedrich and I are currently sitting down going through the
> ] > ] preliminary requirements documents for WP9 on the wiki [1], ahead of
> ] > ] the meeting we are having in January in Brussels [2].
> ] > ]
> ] > ] We have a few questions about the process and a few comments/questions
> ] > ] regarding the draft material.
> ] > ]
> ] > ] ## Questions about the requirements process
> ] > ]
> ] > ]   * Can someone give us an overview of what will happen next with the
> ] > ] draft requirements material on the wiki? Is Tenforce going to clean
> ] > ] this up and turn it into prose?
> ] > ]   * How will be able to participate in this process? Is next week the
> ] > ] last opportunity we'll have to provide input, or will we be able to
> ] > ] continue to do so on an iterative basis?
> ] > ]
> ] > ] ## Comments questions about the material on the wiki
> ] > ]
> ] > ]   * As we discussed on the call earlier we'd like to propose to merge
> ] > ] UCS 4 into UCS 3, as we think there are strong overlaps. Is everyone
> ] > ] happy with this?
> ] > ]   * We've done some light editing, but we are thinking of doing some
> ] > ] more substantial revisions to the material on the wiki. Should we just
> ] > ] go ahead and do this (given that all changes are versioned).
> ] > ]   * We'd like to propose a sharp distinction between the catalogue
> ] > ] (dealing with metadata about datasets) and the repository (which will
> ] > ] cache/store datasets). This is clear in many parts of the text, but
> ] > ] we'd like to go through clarifying which we mean when we are talking
> ] > ] about different features. For us the main priority of PublicData.eu is
> ] > ] the metadata, and the dataset storage functions will be very much
> ] > ] secondary.
> ] > ]   * In several places we talk about 'centralised metadata catalogue'
> ] > ] but we'd like to clarify what is meant by this. Currently we're
> ] > ] envisaging that one of the big challenges with PublicData.eu will be
> ] > ] federating different sources of metadata from lots of different
> ] > ] places.
> ] > ]   * Perhaps we could rename UCS 7 to 'Ancillary Services' and include
> ] > ] in this all kinds of valuable bits and pieces that are not part of the
> ] > ] core research / technology development in UCS 1-6, such as guidance
> ] > ] for data publishers (including legal / licensing information and
> ] > ] technical standards), fora for users (where can I find this kind of
> ] > ] data?), and so on. E.g. should this include task 9.3 and 9.4?
> ] > ]
> ] > ] Thanks!
> ] > ]
> ] > ] All the best,
> ] > ]
> ] > ] Jonathan
> ] > ]
> ] > ] [1] https://grips.punkt.at/display/LOD2/Requirements+Elicitation+OGD
> ] > ] [2] https://grips.punkt.at/display/LOD2/Co-ordination+WP1
> ] > ]
> ] > ] --
> ] > ] Jonathan Gray
> ] > ]
> ] > ] Community Coordinator
> ] > ] The Open Knowledge Foundation
> ] > ] http://blog.okfn.org
> ] > ]
> ] > ] http://twitter.com/jwyg
> ] > ] http://identi.ca/jwyg
> ] > ]
> ] > ] _______________________________________________
> ] > ] publicdata-eu mailing list
> ] > ] publicdata-eu at lists.okfn.org
> ] > ] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/publicdata-eu
> ] >
> ] > --
> ] > William Waites                <mailto:ww at styx.org>
> ] > http://eris.okfn.org/ww/         <sip:ww at styx.org>
> ] > 9C7E F636 52F6 1004 E40A  E565 98E3 BBF3 8320 7664
> ] >
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ] --
> ] Jonathan Gray
> ]
> ] Community Coordinator
> ] The Open Knowledge Foundation
> ] http://blog.okfn.org
> ]
> ] http://twitter.com/jwyg
> ] http://identi.ca/jwyg
>
> --
> William Waites                <mailto:ww at styx.org>
> http://eris.okfn.org/ww/         <sip:ww at styx.org>
> 9C7E F636 52F6 1004 E40A  E565 98E3 BBF3 8320 7664
>

-- 
Jonathan Gray

Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://blog.okfn.org

http://twitter.com/jwyg
http://identi.ca/jwyg