W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > June 2015

Suggestion for context section

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 17:02:12 +0100
Message-ID: <55804884.9070403@w3.org>
To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br>, Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br>
I've been trying to catch up with last week's minutes etc.

On the comments received, it's necessary to show that we have responded 
to the commentators. This should be done by simply replying to their 
e-mail, including the relevant archive (remember that only WG members 
can post to *this* list, but there is the 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/ list which is 
open to everyone.

In an ideal world, there's a reply from the commentator indicating that 
they're happy with the resolution. if there's no reply, OK, we move on 
(documents don't get held up).

Also, I'm not surprised to see that the context section is throwing up 
questions. For me, the diagram and associated text should be in the 
section on data versioning, not a separate section about the context of 
the whole document.

How would you feel about moving it to 
http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning ? And then adding an 
issue saying that this is something we're keen to hear comments about, 
including comments on the potential use of DCAT+PAV.

Bigger question: does the WG feel motivated and able to develop DCAT 1.1 
to include versioning?

Phil.


-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2015 16:02:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 June 2015 16:02:08 UTC