W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-comments@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Comments on Data on the Web Best Practices

From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:29:46 -0800
To: Doug Schepers <standards@schepers.cc>, public-dwbp-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <109985b5-ec4e-6f4e-dd04-1348f3a7509c@lbl.gov>
This all sounds great to me. Thanks, Doug, for doing all that!

-Annette


On 1/10/17 12:09 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, Data on the Web Best Practitioners–
>
> Thanks for publishing the Data on the Web Best Practices spec [1]. 
> This will be useful for me, so I just finished reading it. Nicely done!
>
> As discussed on Facebook, I have a few minor suggestions on the PR 
> draft. :) I know this is late feedback, so please feel free to ignore 
> it or push it to the next version. However, I would be considered any 
> of these changes editorial, since none of them affect any conformance 
> criteria.
>
> I made a Github PR for each of these.
>
> First, I noticed that two of the diagrams weren't accessible, so I 
> made (mostly) accessible SVG versions of them. One of them 
> (challenges.svg) originally used script to navigate in the main spec, 
> and I replaced this with simple links to do the same thing (note: this 
> technique needs the filename of the spec, which I assumed is 
> "Overview.html", rather than "index.html"… change as needed). I 
> adjusted the HTML file to use the preferred <object> element, rather 
> than the <embed> element, to include these.
>
> Newton has graciously already accepted this PR [2].
>
> Second, I fixed a few minor typos and grammar problems [3]. These 
> should be uncontroversial.
>
> Third, I added short descriptive names to the namespaces table, with 
> links to the bibliography (where present… you don't reference RDF). I 
> think these short names would make it clearer and less intimidating to 
> the new reader what those namespaces are for, but I understand if you 
> don't consider that editorial at this stage. It's in the same PR as 
> the typos, but you can easily roll it back.
>
> Finally, I was really struck that the example data provider is named 
> "John", rather than some gender-neutral name like "Adrian". While 
> certainly unintentional, this risk perpetuating gender stereotyping in 
> tech, and I think it's a good opportunity to use a gender-neutral name 
> (and, for that matter, maybe one that isn't so obviously 
> English-language). I'd be happy to make a PR for this, which would 
> also affect some of the other dwbp-example files, and would need a 
> couple of changes of pronoun from "he" to "they" (or to just avoid 
> pronouns altogether). This would be a PC PR PR. :D
>
> Again, I don't mind if you ignore or push these last comments off to a 
> next version, but I thought I'd suggest them.
>
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/PR-dwbp-20161215/
> [2] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/504
> [3] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/505
>
> Thanks!
> Doug
>
>
>

-- 
Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2017 19:30:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 10 January 2017 19:30:28 UTC