W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > November 2013

Re: Link to RDF vocabulary for QB

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:30:19 +0000
Message-ID: <528DD2AB.9010407@w3.org>
To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
CC: W3C public GLD WG WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Sandro may correct me but I'm not aware of any specific rules on this so 
AIUI you're free to do as you wish. However...

The doc in /TR space is the normative one - anything else is a 
copy/derivative and any disparity needs to be handled somehow. The fact 
that the QB namespace is in purl.org and published under a different 
licence makes the case even more strongly IMHO for one or other doc to 
be normative and, not surprisingly, I'd say that w3.org/TR is the one to 
choose.

As well as the possible disparity issue, the /TR space doc includes a 
lot of explanation that is absent from the schema, with only some of 
that text marked as non-normative. If you have text that is normative in 
one doc and not in the other, they both can't be normative.

Whether you choose to make any changes, let alone how and where you 
choose to link is, as I say, up to you as editor (modulo any requests 
from the WG). DanBri does it a little differently 
(http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/) - and that seems fine too, although, 
without wishing to keep labouring the point, it would need clarity on 
what was and what was not normative if it were in /TR space. At CR very 
little can be changed but providing a link to the schema at the top of 
the spec is something some people find useful.

HTH

Phil.



On 20/11/2013 23:21, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> On 20/11/13 20:40, Phil Archer wrote:
>> Ooh, good catch, yes, thanks Tim.
>>
>> We normally do this (see http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-regorg/ for example)
>>
>> We'll do this on the next step.
>>
>> @Dave, @Fadi please note (it normally goes just about the copyright
>> line).
>
> Interesting, not seen that before.
>
> I would rather have the namespace link earlier on than it currently is
> and have that be dereferenceable. Having the first link to the
> vocabulary not be to the namespace but to format-specific URLs strikes
> me as a recipe for problems.
>
> Does the vocabulary really count as non-normative?
>
> The phasing "also available as" seems odd too.
>
> Is it OK if I use the PROV-O approach. That strikes me as preferable.
>
> Dave
>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> On 20/11/2013 20:20, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>> GLD,
>>>
>>> Regarding http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/, would it be possible
>>> to state within the first screenful of the page a centered statement
>>> like:
>>>
>>>            “The RDFS encoding of the Data Cube Vocabulary is available
>>> <a>here</a>.”
>>>
>>> For example, in the abstract of http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/, it
>>> states two critical elements of Linked Data developers:
>>>
>>>            The namespace for all PROV-O terms is
>>> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#.
>>>            The OWL encoding of the PROV Ontology is available here.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim Lebo
>>>
>>
>
>

-- 

Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 09:30:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:40 UTC