W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > September 2011

Re: "Publish the policies followed when coining URIs"

From: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue@figoblog.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:40:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAODLZ4jNVzrxVpAaAbscNkSmJPGT91thyvbkwPXhhZEQjSn_Vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
Hi Tom, & all,

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> I think it was fine the way it was. Most of these sections have already been
> heavily edited and should only be re-edited if terribly unclear.
>
> kc

I agree with Karen.

It seems to me that quite a lot of the meaning that was present in
that paragraph was lost in this revision. My understanding of
"Namespaces policy" as envisionned in our discussions, is that is
covers not only the URI patterns, but also the management of the
vocabulary / ontology (versionning, etc.). Maybe the "preserving"
vocabularies is too much in the title here, but we should at least
keep "managing" - so how about :

=== Develop policies for managing RDF vocabularies and coining URIs ===


>
> Quoting Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>:
>
>> I suspect that the title for this section, "Develop policies for managing
>> and
>> preserving RDF vocabularies," was a hold-over from an earlier version of
>> this
>> section, as the preservation of RDF vocabularies is now covered in a
>> subsequent
>> section.  How about:
>>
>>    Publish the policies followed when coining URIs
>>
>>    Organizations and individuals who create and maintain URIs for
>> resources
>>    and descriptive vocabularies should publish the policies followed when
>>    coining those URIs. Such "namespace policies" provide quality assurance
>> for
>>    users of URIs, and the widespread availability of such policies will
>>    promote the creation of better data. Policies might cover:

new version is really different, the concept of "standard" is lost, as
well as the rationale for developping policies. Isn't it a bit late to
make that much changes ?

>>
>>    * Patterns used to coin the URIs, preferably based on best-practice
>> guidelines.
>>    * Institutional commitments to the persistence of the URIs.

+1 for these edits, actually making things clearer

>>    * Version policy for the resources identified by the URIs.

lost version policy for the namespace itself

>>    * The use of "HTTP" URIs, which invoke the Hypertext Transfer Protocol
>> supported
>>      universally by Web browsers, and their resolution to any Web pages or
>> RDF schemas
>>      which document the meaning of the URIs.

+1, I like the new wording

>>    * Translations of labels and other annotations into other languages.
>>
>> Note:
>> --  Removed references to "namespaces," which were undefined and add an
>> unnecessary
>>    layer of complexity.
>> --  Removed reference to "Good practice guidelines and recipes for
>> constructing
>>    ontologies and structured vocabularies." -- out of place here.

Not sure it's irrelevant : best practices would be needed when we're
talking about providing URIs for a vocabulary which wasn't primarily
designed for the Semantic Web (e.g. RDA)

>> --  Added reference to
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol


Also, this has disappeared :

"* Extensibility of use of the namespace by smaller organizations."
I'm not sure what was meant here, but feel uncomfortable with removing
it altogether.

Emma


>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_recommendations_page_take2&diff=6135&oldid=6133
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 10:40:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 September 2011 10:40:42 GMT