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

Re: Request for review

From: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:26:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CALcEXf6v7LGDUdgZeTGoE+6+o2T2nwSiev=r1Gmrd1ZdZBv7Kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br>
Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org" <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
Great!

Thanks!

m.
Michel Dumontier, PhD
Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics)
Stanford University
http://dumontierlab.com


On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br> wrote:
> 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 22:27:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 27 June 2016 22:27:45 UTC