W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: addressing old comments from Erik W

From: Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:10:27 +0100
To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56E6E273.2050807@nic.br>
Hello Annette,

I answer bellow.

Kind regards,

On 08/03/16 23:19, Annette Greiner wrote:
> Hi Caroline,
> That's odd, the comments tracker points to an older version for that 
> one, and neither 8 nor 18 in that FPWD is about versioning, but 
> neither do those two seem enough related to have elicited that remark. 
> I see that he did mention those two numbers in an email about 
> versioning later, though, so now I think the context info just got 
> entered wrong. I think we can call that one addressed now.
Thank you. This was solved. We just sent an email to Erik about it.
> But since looking up the old one led me to the fact that we do have 
> duplication about use of standard vocabularies, I think we should open 
> a new comment, with me as the commenter.
> We have two closely related BPs
> Use standardized terms
> Standardized terms should be used to provide data and metadata
> and
> Reuse vocabularies
> Shared vocabularies should be used to provide data and metadata
> The current descriptions don't distinguish the two ideas very clearly. 
> Shared vocabularies *are* standardized terms. I think the content in 
> the two could be handled in a single BP. I'll also note that GTFS is 
> not about terms alone. It's a specification that also requires a 
> specific data model. Maybe that's what the second BP about 
> standardization should really be about.
We will create an issue for these discussions.

> -Annette
> On 3/8/16 1:26 PM, Caroline Burle wrote:
>> Annette, thank you very much!
>> Based on your comments we updated the table Bernadette created to 
>> follow the open comments on the tracker: 
>> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Comment_tracker_status.
>> Regarding LC-3051 we think Erik's comments were before this version, 
>> where he was talking about BP8 "Provide versioning information" [1] 
>> and BP 18 "vocabulary versioning" [2] and this BP was removed. Does 
>> you comment regard that or another thing?
>> Thank you! Kind regards,
>> Bernadette, Caroline and Newton
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150625/#VersioningInfo
>> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150625/#VersioningVocabularies
>> On 03/03/16 17:24, Annette Greiner wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>> Further to the agenda item of closing old DWBP comments, I've 
>>> collated the comments from Erik Wilde so that we can discuss them. 
>>> My thoughts on each are added in bold.
>>> -Annette
>>> LC-3061
>>> regarding best practice 30, i am wondering if
>>> https://github.com/dret/I-D/blob/master/sunset-header/draft-wilde-sunset-header-00.txt 
>>> is something that might be worth mentioning in some form. this is
>>> currently a pre-I-D draft, but maybe the general idea of communicating
>>> resource availability is relevant for DWBP?
>>> *Not addressed. Something to consider adding to the doc, if it’s 
>>> stable.*
>>> LC-3059
>>> generally speaking, i am wondering why the terms hypertext or
>>> hypermedia are not even mentioned in the spec. isn't that what data on
>>> the web ideally should be, linkable and linked?
>>> https://github.com/dret/webdata#one-star-linkable and
>>> https://github.com/dret/webdata#four-star-linked are core principles 
>>> for
>>> good web data. *linkable* means more than just URIs. it also means, for
>>> example, to provide meaningful and robust fragment identifiers for
>>> others to link to. *linked* means to use URIs and to specifically avoid
>>> other kinds of (often non-globally scoped) identifiers, so that links
>>> don't break when taken out of context.
>>> *Partially addressed. We don’t talk about fragment identifiers. I 
>>> suggest we add it. This relates to LC-3058 and LC-3051*
>>> LC-3057
>>> "Best Practice 14: Provide data in multiple formats" might want to say
>>> if that should be done by different URIs, or one URI and HTTP conneg.
>>> that's a very typical question publishers have, so it should be
>>> mentioned at the very least, even if the answer is "we have no specific
>>> recommendation either way".
>>> *Not addressed. We mention URIs and conneg in the API versioning BP, 
>>> but not in the discussion of multiple formats. I suggest we add it.*
>>> LC-3058
>>> "Best Practice 14: Provide data in multiple formats" should say that
>>> for fragment identifiers to be consistent across formats, care is 
>>> needed
>>> to make sure that this is the case (as much as possible, depending on
>>> the formats and their features).
>>> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Best Practice 12: Use persistent URIs as 
>>> identifiers within datasets 
>>> (https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#identifiersWithinDatasets)addresses 
>>> this comments.
>>> *Not addressed. Actually that BP doesn’t address the issue 
>>> raised.And that BP confuses fragment identifiers with reused URIs to 
>>> refer to entities.*
>>> LC-3060
>>> best practices 24 and 27 kind of conflict. one important idea of REST
>>> is to avoid versioning, and having versioned URIs is a pretty certain
>>> sign of bad design smell when it comes to media types and API design.
>>> LC-3052
>>> when it comes to versioning, i am always recommending to focus on
>>> openness and extensibility and have robust and well-defined models for
>>> those (this almost always requires well-defined processing models for
>>> data). this often avoids the need for versioning, which when done badly
>>> will be a breaking change.
>>> when it comes to versioning, it is important to distinguish between
>>> breaking and non-breaking versioning changes. this comes down to the
>>> comment above: good openness and extensibility makes it easier to have
>>> non-breaking versioning, which helps tremendously in decentralized
>>> ecosystems.
>>> *Addressed: We now have a BP “Avoid breaking changes to your API”*
>>> LC-3051
>>> what is the difference between "Best Practice 8" and "Best Practice
>>> 18" (reuse vocabularies)? it seems that they are very similar, and 
>>> if there indeed is a
>>> subtle difference, maybe create one practice that spans both, or 
>>> make it
>>> more clear what the difference is?
>>> *Still an issue: We now havea BP “use standardized terms”, which 
>>> talks about standards for nonURIs, like country codes, and also 
>>> URIs, like for acoustic tracking systems. We also have a BP “use 
>>> persistent URIs as identifiers within datasets”.*
>>> -- 
>>> Annette Greiner
>>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> -- 
> Annette Greiner
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Monday, 14 March 2016 16:11:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 14 March 2016 16:11:09 UTC