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

Re: Data on the Web BP for review please

From: Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 19:34:18 -0300
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org" <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5771A9EA.3000301@nic.br>
Dear Frans,

thank you indeed. The resolution of the Data on the Web Best Practices 
Working Group is that it is out of the scope for this document [1].

Kind regards,
BP Editors

[1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

On 27/05/16 12:22, Phil Archer wrote:
> Hi Frans,
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> We had a telco a little earlier today and discussed your comment - so 
> far without any resolution. There is sympathy with the point you raise 
> but it's debatable whether it applies specifically to data on the Web 
> as opposed to numeric data in general. Plus we're concerned that there 
> is pretty much no time to create and receive reviews of a new BP.
>
> No definite decision yet though!
>
> By copying this reply to the DWBPs comment list, it is already in the 
> system. no need to send it again unless you want to add more detail.
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil.
>
> On 27/05/2016 11:05, Frans Knibbe wrote:
>> Hello Phil, all,
>>
>> Thanks, the document looks great and hope many will read it and take 
>> it to
>> heart.
>>
>> One thing I miss is the advice to use significant figures in numerical
>> data. It is an easy way to make the data match their uncertainty, and in
>> many cases it helps to compact data too. Numerical data with the wrong
>> number of significant digits is a very common problem in geographical 
>> data
>> (e.g. geographic coordinates with nanometre precision).
>>
>> Should I post a personal comment about this to 
>> public-dwbp-comments@w3.org?
>> Or do want to comment on significant figures as a group?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Frans
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-05-25 10:26 GMT+02:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> As you may have seen, last Thursday the DWBP WG published a new 
>>> version on
>>> its BP doc and supporting vocabularies. These are now stable with a 
>>> couple
>>> of specific issues in the vocabs and no known issues for the BP doc 
>>> which
>>> is expected to transition to Candidate Recommendation next month.
>>>
>>> So we're now in the final call for comments ahead of the call for
>>> implementations which comes next.
>>>
>>> The input provided by the individuals in the To line of this mail are
>>> already acknowledged but if there are further comments, please get 
>>> them to
>>> the WG by 12 June. I'm thinking in particular of the alignment with 
>>> SDW BP
>>> to make sure that the latter sensibly builds on DWBP.
>>>
>>> Please see
>>>
>>> Data on the Web Best Practices
>>>  https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160519/
>>>
>>> Data Quality Vocabulary
>>>  https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-dqv-20160519/
>>>
>>> Dataset Usage vocabulary
>>>  https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-duv-20160519/
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Phil.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 22:34:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 27 June 2016 22:34:53 UTC