- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:56:56 +0200
- To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
I forgot to write it: I think the move of the diagram is a very good idea!
Antoine
On 6/19/15 2:47 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>
>> Bigger question: does the WG feel motivated and able to develop DCAT 1.1 to include versioning?
>>
>>
>> I feel motivated because IMO this is something really important that needs to be done! However, I am not sure if we are able to do this :) Let's see the opinion of the rest of the group ;)
>>
>> Are there initiatives to develop this extension?
>>
>
>
> My two cents: we should wait and see what the outcome of the discussion on the relation between DCAT and DUV/DQV: if we fully include DUV/DQV into DCAT, then it would make sense to also try and include versions in DCAT, and I can gladly help.
>
> But if we don't fully include DUV/DQV into DCAT then it means that:
>
> 1. The group had not had the time to push for this. In such case, it will then seem stupid to have devoted our limited resources on data versioning efforts (as such efforts will mechanically weaken our work on DUV/DQV).
>
> 2. We are forced to have a 'data versioning vocabulary' ('DVV'?) as a non-DCAT vocabulary.
> I am entertained by the idea of our group having a strong portfolio of own acronyms that start with 'D' and end with 'V'. But from the perspective of our work within W3C, it doesn't seem a very desirable to create many 'semi-standard' vocabularies.
>
> Antoine
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 19 June 2015 12:57:25 UTC