W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-comments@w3.org > June 2016

Re: Request for review

From: Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 19:21:09 -0300
To: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@stanford.edu>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Cc: "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org" <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5771A6D5.2080203@nic.br>
Dear Michel,

thank you for your comments. We addressed it on the BP Document [1] as 
you may see the Commit at Github [2] [3].

Kind regards,
BP Editors

[1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html
[2] 
https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/408/commits/35fe8437dc7ffc6f5dca66ad0ba8da983899d617
[3] 
https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/d2e60fb062e96524d5efa6a933b2d51597bbdf6c


On 27/05/16 15:06, Michel Dumontier wrote:
> Dear Phil & DWBP team,
>
>   Great work! I find the document easy to read and the examples are clear.
>
> I found one technical issue:
>
> Best practice 3 uses dct:conformsTo, but the range of this is a URI of
> type dct:Standard, so it should be a URI for the ISO spec.
>
> one social: if one wants to follow BP31 - enrich data by generating
> new data - but that person is not the original data provider - i'd
> recommend that they make their contribution public (rather than
> republishing the whole dataset), with a machine readable provenance
> description of the work, and contribute the enrichment back to the
> original data provider.
>
> Cheers,
>
> m.
> Michel Dumontier, PhD
> Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics)
> Stanford University
> http://dumontierlab.com
>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group very recently published
>> three documents in what in the old days we'd have referred to as Last Call.
>> There are two vocabularies (that will be Notes) and one Best Practice
>> Document which is on the Rec Track.
>>
>> I *believe* that the two vocabularies [1, 2] will not need your attention.
>> They set out a data model and terms used - which, like any vocabulary, can
>> be localised. The Best Practices document refers specifically to locale in
>> one of its BPs and it's that one [3] for which we specifically are seeking
>> your review please. I don't think the doc as a whole will need a detailed
>> review - but of course you're better judges of that than we are. Its
>> normative content is the intended outcomes, which are written in very
>> general terms. We then offer *possible implementations*, none of which
>> define new technologies.
>>
>> It's a loooong doc, so I hope for all our sakes that I'm right that a full
>> review is not necessary - especially as we're hoping to move to CR for the
>> Best Practices Doc by the end of June so we're asking for reviews by Sunday
>> 12th.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-dqv-20160519/
>> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-duv-20160519/
>> [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160519/#LocaleParametersMetadata
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Phil Archer
>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>
>> http://philarcher.org
>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>> @philarcher1
>>
>
Received on Monday, 27 June 2016 22:21:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 27 June 2016 22:21:44 UTC