Re: BP 5-Star Scheme

Hi MArios

Thanks for your comment.
Originally this part was intended to reflect the scheme proposed in [1],
i.e., 5 star scheme for vocabularies, following the same philosophy of the
5 stars scheme for datasets ... so, it's not what is reflected in the
current document, we need to improve that part... thanks!

Boris




[1]
http://bvatant.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/is-your-linked-data-vocabulary-5-star_9588.html



On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Marios Meimaris <m.meimaris@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> just some quick remarks concerning the vocabulary-specific phrasing of the
> 5-star scheme, having in mind that many people will probably be using this
> document as a sort of Linked Data primer.
>
> a. The first (and only) reference to the 5-star scheme, being where it is
> now (section 6 - Vocabulary Creation), along with the vocabulary-specific
> phrasing, can make people confused as to the 5-star scheme's actual
> coverage.
>
>
> b. There is a mismatch between the vocabulary-specific third star and the
> original third star:
>
> "use non-proprietary formats (e.g., CSV instead of Excel)"
> vs
> "Provide labels and descriptions, if possible in several languages, to
> make your vocabulary usable in multiple linguistic scopes.
> *" *
>
> Shouldn't these be reflecting the same point? Unless of course I'm missing
> the intended equality between the two phrases, in which case the latter
> should probably be rephrased.
>
> c. Again, for consistency between the GLD documents, the link to the
> 5-star scheme should point to the LD Glossary entry (
> http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/#x5-star-linked-open-data), as is the
> case with other terms such as data modelling, http-uris, vocabularies in BP.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Marios
>