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

Re: questions from the Vocabulary and Dataset editing.

From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:19:31 +0100
Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
Message-Id: <9F68ADDE-0364-4793-A405-05D8AE5952C6@deri.org>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>

On 15 Sep 2011, at 17:11, Antoine Isaac wrote:

>>> * Have we decided to use "cases" as opposed to "use cases"?
>> I could use a style guide on that!
> I prefer to use "cases" for all the thing that we gathered at
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport#Summary_of_individual_cases
> As pointed out in the use case report, these are in fact not always true "use cases": we have examples of datasets, projects without a well identified usage scenario, etc.
> What is closer to "use case" is what is extracted from the cases, and grouped into clusters at
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport#Description_of_Use_Cases
> The problem is that then the title of each sub-section is "use case" so the use case report does not follow my own convention (this section was precisely the point where I stopped my review, last time, in fact !)
> I won't be nitpicking about removing "use" from everywhere it shouldn't apply-- I can't impose this on anyone! But I certainly would argue against putting it back when I've already transformed from "use cases" to 'cases" ;-)

'Cases' seems fine to me. We can discuss doing this more broadly; it's a simple change, and if it would be more accurate, it's fine. :)

>>> * Should elements and values be capitalized?
>> Don't think so.
> +1. A good convention is to put them in a different font: courrier is good for this. But this is another of these roads that we maynot want to go down...

Right--that's a good idea. Will you remind us when we get into the HTML tidying?

>>> * "The curators of these groups have arrived at a set of conventions for using the tagging facilities in CKAN to describe packages that are to be included. " -- if these are documented someplace, this would be a good place to link them, or say more. It's possible that the links below this are the documentation -- but that's not clear enough to me from the wording here.
> It is the documentation indeed.

Great, I've revised to

This documentation, below, includes information about size of data, example resources and access methods (e.g., SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL) endpoints) and, crucially, links to other data packages. ''See:''
* http://www.w3.org/wiki/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData/DataSets/CKANmetainformation
* http://www.w3.org/wiki/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkedLibraryData/Datasets/CKANmetainformation

>>> * "It is also apparent that linking to other data that do not have this central character is quite common."
>> ??? no idea what is meant

> I've directly picked Tom's sentences here. In the course of the discussion it was obvious that he was refering to the fact that there is linkage to datasets that are not central in the cloud (ie, they are not as strong "hubs" as the ones mentioned in the previous sentence). But I won't complain if you remove the sentence altogether, that point is not the strongest we want to make.

Ok, I've revised to 

It is also apparent that linking to other data that does not have this central character is quite common: it's not only the hubs that are useful.

I think it's a point well worth making, but I want it to be unmistakeable! :)


The below stuff still hasn't been addressed, so maybe somebody has time to give that a go?

>>> * I'm not sure what this means:
>>> "Although ULAN not yet published as Linked Data per se, it does appears in the [http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset#VIAF_.28Virtual_International_Authority_File.29|VIAF]."
>>> * What does "their own" refer to here?
>>> "In addition to the documentation made available on their own websites, the reader can view their content using generic ontology creation and visualization tools such as [http://protege.stanford.edu/ Protégé], the [http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/browser/ Manchester ontology browser], [http://pellet.owldl.com/owlsight/ OWL Sight] or the [http://lode.sourceforge.net/ Live OWL Documentation Environment (LODE)] "
>>> * Does NACO stand for "name authority component"? Should we spell that out?
>>> * Does TELplus stand for The European Library plus? Should we spell that out?
>>> * What is the correct name for MARC21? MAchine-Readable Cataloging21?
>>> * When should DC be abbreviated?
>>> * Should API be spelled out?
>>> * Does SKOS-XL have a long name?
>>> * Ditto for OWL-DL?
>>> * Does LOCAH have a long name?
>>> * Does SPECTRUM have a long name?
>>> * "As of the winter of 2011," "It contains terms in 24 languages (as of May 2011)."
>>> Do we want to say "As of the date of this report"?
>>> * It's a little strange that the usage examples appear before the vocabs here:
>>> =====Preservation vocabularies from LoC=====
>>> * Usage examples: [[Use Case Digital Preservation]]
>>> ======[http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/preservationEvents Preservation Events]======
>>> A concept scheme for the preservation events, i.e., actions performed on digital objects within a preservation repository.
>>> ======[http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/preservationLevelRole Preservation Level Role]======
>>> A concept scheme for the preservation level roles, i.e., values that specify in what context a set of preservation options is applicable.

Thanks again!

Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 16:20:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:59 UTC