W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > May 2018

RE: [dxwg] Revision to UC19

From: <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 14:43:12 +0000
To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EDFF15E839F79242AA55B1468C63DDA908DC8556@S-DC-ESTG02-J.net1.cec.eu.int>
Thanks, Karen. I'll check if I can find a resolution. 

The revisions in the PR were actually meant to address the issue you point out, and I would like to know what the WG think of it.

BTW, in case it could turn to be useful, some time ago I have documented some examples in the GH wiki (under the "Provenance patterns" page):

https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/Provenance-patterns 

Cheers,

Andrea

----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 - Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/


----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 4:20 PM
>To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: [dxwg] Revision to UC19
>
>Thanks, Andrea. But the email you respond to there (mine)[1] said:
>
>">My recollection, Andrea, is that most of the group did not understand in
>>any level of detail what the Use Case was requiring of DCAT. I suspect
>>that if the requirement is to require that DCAT include both unqualified
>>and qualified terms, that many will consider that out of scope."
>
>and
>
>">I would suggest marking these two requirements as currently undecided in
>>the FPWD, and we can set aside a time in the near future to clarify this
>>with the group and decide what to do with them."
>
>So unless there's a resolution that I've missed (it's tedious going
>through them ...) this was something that still needs group discussion
>and decision.
>
>
>kc
>[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2017Nov/0115.html

>
>
>On 5/21/18 12:08 PM, Andrea Perego via GitHub wrote:
>> @agbeltran , my request was actually because this PR was hanging on for
>> more than 1 month with no feedback besides @dr-shorthair 's.
>>
>> @kcoyle , just for clarity's sake, this is not a new UC, but one
>> contributed during the very first phase of the UC collection. Based on
>> my records, the UC was approved, modulo being revised as per
>> [ACTION-59](https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/59). ACTION-
>59
>> also list the relevant emails. As I said in [this
>> email](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-

>wg/2017Nov/0115.html),
>>
>>> [...] this use case is a generalisation of other 4 more specific use
>>> cases I contributed, covering data lineage
>>> [[1](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID12)], agent roles
>>> [[2](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID13)], data quality
>>> [[3](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID14)], and conformity
>>> [[4](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID16)]. Moreover, UC5.32
>>> [[5](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID32)], contributed by Alejandra,
>>> is also related. [...]
>>
>> The UC has been revised as agreed, and the revision contributed on [23
>> Jan
>> 2018](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-

>wg/2018Jan/0079.html).
>> As I didn't receive any feedback, I decided to proceed with a PR to
>> trigger comments (if any).
>>
>
>--
>Karen Coyle
>kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net

>m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2018 14:43:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:44:59 UTC