- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:23:26 +0000
- To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, "Purohit, Sumit" <Sumit.Purohit@pnnl.gov>
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
And is this Note still relevant? "Based on discussions held June-August the model has been modified significantly The non-normative text below needs updating once general agreement is reached on the DUV model." On 14/01/2016 20:10, Phil Archer wrote: > Eric, Sumit, Berna, > > I have an idea this won't be the only question I have for you about DUV > but I'm working through it and I'll jot down some observations and > questions as I go. > > First of all, I've fixed the ReSpec errors so my copy is now OK on that > score [1]. > > Secondly, in the Status section, the text says "This is a draft document > which may be merged into another document or eventually make its way > into being a standalone Working Draft." is that still true? I may be > wrong but my impression is that the WG finds it easier to keep DUV and > DQV separate. > > The Status section needs to have at least one custom paragraph, i.e. > some indication of what *this* version is about, it's stability etc. > *If* the following is accurate, then something like: > > "This is the second iteration of the vocabulary, developed following > extensive consultation among and outside the working group who now > regard it as nearing completion. Comment and feedback is sought before > the next iteration which is likely to be the final version for the > foreseeable future." > > would be appropriate. > > I'm hoping to add links to your SVG next... > > Phil > > [1] http://philarcher1.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2016 20:23:22 UTC