- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:34:29 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
On 01/10/2012 18:35, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Hi Phil, > > On 1 Oct 2012, at 17:32, Phil Archer wrote: >> I'm very pleased to see the conformance section as you've written it but have two comments: > ... >> 2. I'd really like this to become boiler plate for all vocabularies if possible so I wonder if specific references to ORG can be removed from the conformance section > > I'm slightly uncomfortable with the sentiment that the conformance section should be free of references to ORG, because I think there can be valid reasons for emphasizing different things in the conformance sections of different vocabularies. > > May I therefore propose a slightly different course of action? > > How about drafting a “boilerplate vocabulary conformance section” in the wiki, with an eye towards using it (with variations where appropriate) in all our vocabularies, but also with an eye towards proposing it as something that's potentially applicable beyond GLD? > > Phil, do you want to take a first stab at this wiki page? Sure, I can take that on. Phil. > > Best, > Richard > > >> thus: >> >> * may use only a subset of ORG terms. >> >> Becomes >> >> * may use only a subset of terms defined here. >> >> An 'ORG profile' becomes 'Application profile' or, if preferred, 'Vocabulary profile' >> >> Phil. >> >> On 01/10/2012 09:58, Dave Reynolds wrote: >>> I've carried out the agreed changes, and a number of editorial >>> improvements, to the ORG specification and believe it is now ready for >>> review. >>> >>> A static version dated 2012-10-01 is at: >>> >>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/static.html >>> >>> Notes >>> >>> (1) I also updated the "conformance" section based on the current >>> discussion between Richard and Phil, adapted for ORG rather than DCAT. >>> I've used the term "data interchange" to represent the thing that >>> conforms - meaning this to cover publication (by file, SPARQL or >>> embedded) and exchange protocols. >>> >>> (2) ORG has a couple of references to the OPMV vocabulary. I considered >>> whether these should be changed to use PROV-O [1]. Technically that >>> would be easy, for those parts used in ORG then PROV-O is basically the >>> same as OPMV except for names. However, PROV-O is still at WD stage so >>> if we made that a dependency we would be blocked waiting for PROV-O to >>> proceed. When PROV-O is published it seems likely that someone will >>> provide mappings between it and OPMV, in which case our use of OPMV >>> would automatically be compatible with PROV-O. >>> >>> (3) I've left the document status as Editor's draft, I assume that's >>> right until we've reviewed and voted. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/ >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> Phil Archer >> W3C eGovernment >> http://www.w3.org/egov/ >> >> http://philarcher.org >> +44 (0)7887 767755 >> @philarcher1 >> > > > -- Phil Archer W3C eGovernment http://www.w3.org/egov/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 08:35:12 UTC