Re: Post-mortem comment on ISSUE-179 - using DCAT namespace or not

Dear All,

It seems to me that we have already taken a decision on that, a decision on
which I fully agree ..   so

+1 to have  namespaces separated from DCAT and to delete the related note
on dqv document.

Cheers,
Riccardo

On 22 January 2016 at 23:15, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote:

> To establish a bit of a timeline, last October there was a very small
> contingency of folks including Antoine and myself on the October 16 WG
> call.  I don't believe it was a formal meeting that day and there wasn't a
> vote, but here [1] is the last discussion we had about not using DCAT as a
> namespace, from what I can tell.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eric S
>
> Reference
> [1]  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Oct/0035.html
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Antoine,
>>
>> My understanding is that the WG resolved not to use the DCAT namespace
>> for either vocabulary. I'd have difficulty finding the resolution itself
>> but that is my clear memory. The rationale being that people didn't like
>> having terms in a single namespace being defined in multiple documents.
>>
>> If others have a different recollection, then of course I am ready to be
>> corrected.
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>>
>> On 22/01/2016 16:34, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> We didn't really conclude on my questions today, so I'm going to write
>>> it down in an email, also to share with everyone else.
>>>
>>> During the last F2F we discussed whether DQV and DUV should introduce
>>> their elements in the DCAT namespace or their own. There was an issue,
>>> 197, raised for it [1].
>>> The resolution then was that "DUV begins to use the DCAT namespace, DQV
>>> does not, but that both highlight this as an open issue that will lead
>>> to a common way forward in future." [2]
>>>
>>> Month after, DQV has a note about this:
>>> [
>>> The Working Group is considering putting all new classes and properties
>>> defined in the DWBP Vocabularies in the DCAT namespace. As an attempt to
>>> stimulate reactions which might help in taking a decision, the Dataset
>>> Usage Vocabulary will be moved under the DCAT namespace. In case of
>>> positive reactions to the DUV choice, the data quality vocabulary might
>>> consider to go in the same direction.
>>> ] [3]
>>>
>>> But DUV went its own way and created its own namespace.
>>>
>>> I believe that it's not a big problem. The discussion since then, and
>>> the decision we made to publish DQV and DUV as notes (as opposed to
>>> Recommendations) comfirms that we should have our own namespaces.
>>>
>>> Still I prefer to ask everyone if:
>>> - it's ok that we remove the note about ISSUE-179 in DQV
>>> - we record a new resolution for ISSUE-179.
>>>
>>> Any objection before I do this next week?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/179
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-09-25#resolution_8
>>> [3] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#namespaces
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Phil Archer
>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>
>> http://philarcher.org
>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>> @philarcher1
>>
>>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> *E.F.A. Project* <http://www.efa-project.org>, and is believed to be
> clean.




-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riccardo Albertoni
Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico
Magenes"
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA
tel. +39-010-6475624 - fax +39-010-6475660
e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it
Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni
www: http://www.ge.imati.cnr.it/Albertoni
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni
FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf