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

Comments on DW Doc

From: Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M) <Lewis.J.Mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:41:55 +0000
To: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D12F4F0E.F1DB%lewis.j.mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov>
Hi WG,
I went through and submitted a pull request for the following proposed changes to the BP Doc. This email is aimed to accompany the pull request.
I propose to make the following amendments - https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/115

  *   All technology-related data representation formats such as CSV and JSON should be hyperlinked through an authoritative topic resource e.g. CSV to http://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/wiki/Main_Page. We cannot make statements like "Every attempt has been made to make the document as readable and usable as possible while still retaining the accuracy and clarity needed in a technical specification.” if we do not actually link to technologies such as CSV, JSON. I do notice that we link to JSON-LD which would indicate that we need to resolve these inconsistencies. We also do not link to RDF!
  *   I am actually struggling slightly to not become confused between who the document is meant for… I know that this has been discussed but please consider the following lines
     *   “…common understanding between data publishers and data consumers”
     *   "This document sets out a series of best practices that will help publishers and consumers face the new challenges and opportunities posed by data on the Web. “
     *   “This document provides best practices to those who publish data on the Web.”
     *   “…designed to meet the needs of information management staff, developers, and wider groups such as scientists…”
     *   “…data publishers are our primary audience, we encourage all those engaged in related activities…”
        *   It would seem to me that the above basically includes absolutely everyone that uses the web with specific emphasis on data publishers information management staff, developers, and wider groups such as scientists!
  *   I’ve resolved the incorrect link within the . It should point to http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#requirements instead of http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-UniqueIdentifier
  *   Best practice’s 9 and 10 are very similar.
     *   Best Practice 9: Provide versioning information - “…Using version numbers that follow a standardized approach can also set consumer expectations about how the versions differ.”
     *   Best Practice 10: Provide version history - “……how the data typically changes from version to version and how any two specific versions differ."

  *   Best Practice 17: Vocabulary versioning

     *   Explicit mention of SHOULD… then we state “…It MUST be possible to identify changes to a vocabulary over time.” . This should be changed to “It SHOULD be possible to identify changes to a vocabulary over time.”
     *   The “How to Test” section is here is very weak. We mention earlier that “…so that its evolution can be tracked”. I would strongly argue that vocabulary versioning would provide you with a minimal chance of tracking data/vocabulary evolution. Software enables you to do differentials on data… versioning much less so. The test for vocabulary versioning emphasizes this point. If you only wish to test for “Different versions of a vocabulary can be easily identified;” then why do we mention that vocabulary versioning is related to “…evolution can be tracked”?

Thank you

Dr. Lewis John McGibbney Ph.D., B.Sc., MAGU
Engineering Applications Software Engineer Level 2
Computer Science for Data Intensive Systems Group 398M
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena, California 91109-8099
Mail Stop : 158-256C
Tel:  (+1) (818)-393-7402
Cell: (+1) (626)-487-3476
Fax:  (+1) (818)-393-1190
Email: lewis.j.mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov


 Dare Mighty Things

From: Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br<mailto:newton@nic.br>>
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 3:26 PM
To: Lewis John McGibbney <lewis.j.mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:lewis.j.mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Linking to Github Repos from Homepage

Hi Lewis,

The document is available on Github repository [1], and can be viewed on this link [2].
The FPWD version can be accessed on this link [3].

[1] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp
[2] w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html<http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html>
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150224/


Em 18/03/2015, à(s) 18:56, Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M) <Lewis.J.Mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Lewis.J.Mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov>> escreveu:

Hi Folks,
I am finding no link to the editors draft of the Best Practices document.
I have read it again recently and would like to propose some amendments.
Is there a reason why we can¹t link to the canonical working source for
the document from the Main_Page?
Would be great to find out where it resides so I can make some

(image/png attachment: 2CB3CA5F-DC06-45EF-ADDA-C49A41A8C401_13_.png)

Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 23:42:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:33 UTC