W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dpvcg@w3.org > June 2019

Re: dpvcg-ACTION-115: Sends out an email with pointer to the reviewable spec and rdf files by the end of the week to the list for insternal review.

From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 19:47:20 +0200
To: "Harshvardhan J. Pandit" <me@harshp.com>
Cc: public-dpvcg@w3.org
Message-ID: <3151933.K5IogW9Egi@nyx>
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 7:04:42 PM CEST Harshvardhan J. Pandit wrote:
> Hello Bert, All.
> As agreed, here's the first draft containing HTML+RDF files [1]

Nice work!

I created files at

    http://www.w3.org/ns/dpv
and
    http://www.w3.org/ns/dpv-gdpr

Depending on what your client asks for, you'll get either the turtle 
file (with extension .ttl) or the HTML report (extension .html).

I also added the draft reports on the home page of the DPVCG (https://
www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/) in the form of links to GitHub.

> A few items of note:
> 1) IMP: There is a separate Legal Bases vocabulary. I haven't bundled
> the NACE vocab - is it supposed to be served under w3.org as well or
> separately provided e.g. via Github?

I'm not certain we decided anything.

> 2) Issues are added at the end (bottom), with comments from
> spreadsheet appearing as notes in their respective classes
> 3) Text is no longer synced from the Google Docs via the script, so
> any further edits will have to be made on the HTML directly (unless
> someone is willing to manually copy+paste)
> 4) There is a 'combined' file containing all terms (dpv.ttl) and
> individual 'modules' (e.g. Consent.ttl). Should we provide such
> combined+modular format or only a combined vocabulary?
> (IMO modular is better if someone only wants to use part of it.
> They're all served under the same namespace anyway)

If you go to http://www.w3.org/ns/dpv you'll get the combined 
vocabulary. It may be enough if the partial ones are available just from 
GitHub.

> 5) I have added ontology metadata to each file

You mean the Dublin Core terms? I like that.

> 6) Do we need to define owl:versionIRI?
> 7) What license should be specified in the ontology metadata?

Good question...



Bert
-- 
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Friday, 7 June 2019 17:47:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:27:57 UTC