Re: UCR Forked

Hi Phil,

>> 6. Raised a question for Laufer (Issue-47)

I agree with you that the list of metrics is not necessary. I don't know if
you also want to suppress the list of datasets. I consulted the current
number of triples and it is already outdated. I think that the link to the
datasets list could be sufficient.

"Thirty five datasets (http://download.bio2rdf.org/release/3/release.html)
were generated as part of the Bio2RDF 3 release. Several of the datasets
are themselves collections of datasets that are now available as one
resource. Each dataset has been loaded into a dataset specific SPARQL
endpoint using Openlink Virtuoso."

Laufer

2014-10-02 11:22 GMT-03:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>:

> Dear all,
>
> As you may have noticed ;-) I've been looking carefully at the Use Cases
> document this week. Initially my aim was just to offer an extra pair of
> eyes, spot inconsistencies in language etc. But having begun to go through
> it I found a small number of issues that I felt needed looking at. That's
> what the e-mail traffic has been about this week.
>
> The end result is available for now in my fork on GitHub [1]. I leave it
> to Deirdre and Bernadette to accept/decline the pull request to add these
> changes to the actual editors' draft.
>
> Things that need looking at/noting.
>
> 1. I've added in the Ordnance Survey UC that I wrote by adding it to the
> existing Tracking of Data Usage UC.
>
> 2. I've added Sumit's UC - which covers a lot of requirements (ref
> Action-89)
>
> 3. I've updated the requirements/links in accordance with that.
>
> 4. Made trivial changes to the language (being a native speaker with a
> family history of pedantry is sometimes an advantage, sometimes a curse).
>
> 5. Raised two issues in tracker, one of which IMO was resolved (Issue-46
> on URI design) although I'm not sure Deirdre is happy with that.
>
> 6. Raised a question for Laufer (Issue-47)
>
> 7. Closed Issue-10, Issue-13, Issue-40, Issue-43 with relevant actions,
> e-mails sent and archived.
>
> 8. We still have 2 open issues that I don't feel able to resolve without
> WG discussion:
>
> Makx was asking about whether UCs could be split into different categories
> given that they cover wide areas and styles. That's Issue-31
>
> Eric S asked whether the UCs give sufficient coverage to closed data. I
> have a feeling that they don't...
>
> That makes a total of 3 open issues and 4 that I closed that the relevant
> people may feel should not have been closed and therefore wish to re-open.
>
> With this and COMURI to discuss, tomorrow's call is going to be a
> particularly interesting and substantive one I think.
>
> Phil.
>
>
> [1] http://philarcher1.github.io/dwbp-1/usecasesv1.html
>
>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>
>


-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .