Re: Deferred to Linked Data Best Practices for vocab re-use

Hi Phil,


>
> I agree that this needs proper consideration. When I read the text it looks like a simple repetition of the LDBP doc (although in different language). Not to refer to LDBP at all seemed odd at that point (it gets mentioned elsewhere).


Agreed.


>
> For now I think the simplest thing is to defer to, i.e. allow LDBP to carry the best practice, but recognise that we might want to, as you say, write our own and highlight the differences.


It seems fair. I'm just wondering how to proceed concretely, i.e. how to track the differences.

Antoine


>
> On 26/01/2015 23:32, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> I think that we should have a more explicit re-use-it or leave-it
>> approach to the LDBP, but I also agree with the points Joao Paolo made
>> on the relation between our BPs and the LD BPs. Considering these
>> points, I felt that any difference between our doc and the LD one could
>> be interesting to keep explicit now, for future discussion/alignment. Is
>> it alright then to not show what we have identified to be the most
>> relevant items in the re-use BP?
>> Note that I don't have a strong opinion on these items now. In fact I
>> haven't contributed a lot of the original content for this BP: I've just
>> added or removed a couple of small points, and shifted sentences around.
>> And that's maybe why I'm a bit reluctant to touch the content itself too
>> much!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> On 1/26/15 11:45 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
>>> I'm preparing the BP doc for FPWD and, in doing so, had removed a
>>> chunk of text for BP re-use vocabularies by pointing to the Linked
>>> Data Best practices doc. Later I saw this issue that Antoine had
>>> raised... so I have closed it.
>>>
>>> I just commented the text out rather than deleting it so if the WG
>>> wants to put it back in the next iteration, it can.
>>>
>>> Phil.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tracker: This is Issue-124
>>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 23:59:44 UTC