Re: Remove the Data Vocabularies section from the DWBP document

Antoine and all,

The reason why I +1 the removal of the section is that the best practices
have already been largely recorded elsewhere.   I like the material written
in the vocab section, but if it is described in more detail elsewhere, then
I'd prefer having a reference to the more detailed material.  I believe you
mentioned the elimination of the provenance section because the same
rationale.  I agree, in fact as I was writing the provenance section I kept
thinking there is a wealth of documentation that the W3C PROV group has
already provided and that what was written was really not insight, but a
reference.

I believe Phil mentioned in this thread rather than removing the mention of
vocabularies entirely we instead have references of where people can go for
guidance (with possible amendments for broader Open Data).

If the argument is for the vocabulary section to be retained, I would need
to hear how it is completely distinct from what was previously written by
other groups to change my vote.

Eric S.

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote:

> I've mentioned it once or twice. See, for example, my email to the group
> on January 21.
> -Annette
>
> On May 15, 2015, at 1:41 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>
> > Interesting. Have you made a formal suggestion about it while we were
> writing?
> >
> > Antoine
> >
> > On 5/14/15 8:00 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
> >> not so. I have always held that they are out of scope.
> >> --
> >> Annette Greiner
> >> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> >> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> >> 510-495-2935
> >>
> >> On May 14, 2015, at 2:49 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:
> aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Bernadette,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> These best practices have been deemed in scope earlier, by all the
> group.
>
>
>