Re: Feedback on current editor draft of BPs

Hello Christophe,

Thanks again for being so supportive :)

I think that now I got your point about the commits 1509848
<https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/1509848f1ecd212ee3fcc9e1211a123b96f56bb0>
 and 9873c6b
<https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/9873c6bb8f602a977729ad993614840bf0bf81a2>
 .

I agree with you about making the 'scope' and the 'why' sections
consistent. We're going to follow your suggestion.

Concerning the commit 9873c6b
<https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/9873c6bb8f602a977729ad993614840bf0bf81a2>,
I also agree with removing of 'dct:publisher :transport-agency-mycity'. We're
going to follow your suggestion.

Cheers,
Berna




2016-12-05 4:55 GMT-03:00 Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@gmail.com>:

> Hi Bernadette,
>
> My comments on your commits are listed below.
>>
> And my responses are in-lined... :)
>
>
>> 1509848
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/1509848f1ecd212ee3fcc9e1211a123b96f56bb0> I
>> think this edition changes the semantics of the question. The BP should
>> deal with something that is unique to the Web. I suggest to not change this
>> sentence.
>>
> The point is probably more about the wording than the semantic. The scope
> section say "specifically relevant" and the test says "unique". I wonder if
> the two can be considered equivalent or not, and if not suggested we could
> adjust the text to make it consistent. That could also mean changing the
> "specifically relevant" into "unique" instead of the inverse. But I
> otherwise agree not to touch it.
>
>
>> 9873c6b
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/9873c6bb8f602a977729ad993614840bf0bf81a2> I
>> think we should leave dct:publisher because this can also be seen as a
>> descriptive metadata, no? I agree with including dct:language.
>>
> Ok but then I think the description of :transport-agency-mycity should be
> added to the example. It was also a remark about not adding elements which
> are introduced later.
>
> bf13401
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/bf134013217aaab698a257e814d53fb896b38dfb> My
>> suggestion:
>> Examples of the application of some Best Practices are shown using Turtle
>> [[Turtle]] or JSON-LD [[JSON-LD]]
>>
> Ok!
>
>
>> 0f5f29a
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/0f5f29af971b9ae241d1e5a3382787a4a281bb12> The
>> idea in this case is that a machine can find the data license, but the data
>> license itself doesn't need to be processable.
>>
> Ok!
>
>
>> db17381
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/db17381dfa68740960d5ee75985181a551ca4694> I
>> think it is ok to leave axiom. There is also a reference to OWL2, so more
>> details can be found there.
>>
> Ok!
>
>
>> 7374375
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/737437595ec6177ffe656e8e41c611326470e763> I
>> think if we change the first sentence to remove the reference to sensitive
>> data, then it becomes more generic and solves the problem.
>>
>  Ok!
>
> 0c313df
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/0c313df66691323f9f81e44fc3ac256cf96ee887> I
>> think so. However, I think this update requires a major change on the BP. I
>> suggest to leave the way it is.
>>
> Ok let's leave it then :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Christophe
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Bernadette
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-11-28 10:38 GMT-03:00 Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@gmail.com
>> >:
>>
>>> Hi Bernadette,
>>>
>>> Thanks for considering all the comments :-)
>>> As you saw I just commented further (at the bottom) on your comment "
>>> e70fc2c
>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/e70fc2cba67d453b7e6d163cffb68a14bf83cb5a> I
>>> used the http://www.geonames.org/3399415 and it worked. Is it really
>>> necessary to change?"because I think that the change is indeed needed
>>> to get working LD links.
>>>
>>> Regarding "c7496c2
>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/c7496c219747b2138ccb7d1570a1880cb210de51> The
>>> example shows the inclusion of the locale parameters metadata, followed by
>>> a locale-neutral representation of bus fare data. The example has to parts:
>>> one that shows that metadata and the other one to show an example of
>>> representation. I suggest to leave it like this." I understand these
>>> are two different parts but still think it's confusing to see them
>>> together. Maybe you could just split that code into two <pre> ?
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Christophe
>>>
>>> On 28 November 2016 at 12:41, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Christophe,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot for your detailed review! I checked each one of the
>>>> commits and most of them are editorial changes and can easily be
>>>> incorporated on the document.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to kindly ask you to take a look on comments that I included
>>>> on the pull request [1] and please let me know if you are ok with them.
>>>>
>>>> kind regards,
>>>> Bernadette
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/474
>>>>
>>>> 2016-10-06 19:46 GMT-03:00 Christophe Guéret <
>>>> christophe.gueret@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> Congrats on all the great work :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I have (finally !) been through the latest draft of the best practices
>>>>> and made a number of comments which I just proposed with a pull request (
>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/474). Hope you will find those
>>>>> useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Christophe
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>>>> Centro de Informática
>>>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----------------
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>> Centro de Informática
>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------
>>
>
>


-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------