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

Re: Link to RDF vocabulary for QB

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:05:33 +0000
Message-ID: <528DDAED.1090208@gmail.com>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
CC: W3C public GLD WG WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Hi Phil,

On 21/11/13 09:30, Phil Archer wrote:
> 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.

Fair points, accepted.

> 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.

In that case I propose follow the PROV-O model but with added 
clarification on nomativity[*] and ask the WG to check they are happy 
with the result. Will do this before today's call.


[*] No, that's not a real word :)

> 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
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 10:06:07 UTC

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