- From: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:26:54 -0700
- To: Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br>
- Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org" <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
Great! Thanks! m. Michel Dumontier, PhD Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics) Stanford University http://dumontierlab.com On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br> wrote: > Dear Michel, > > thank you for your comments. We addressed it on the BP Document [1] as you > may see the Commit at Github [2] [3]. > > Kind regards, > BP Editors > > [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html > [2] > https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/408/commits/35fe8437dc7ffc6f5dca66ad0ba8da983899d617 > [3] > https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/d2e60fb062e96524d5efa6a933b2d51597bbdf6c > > > > On 27/05/16 15:06, Michel Dumontier wrote: >> >> Dear Phil & DWBP team, >> >> Great work! I find the document easy to read and the examples are clear. >> >> I found one technical issue: >> >> Best practice 3 uses dct:conformsTo, but the range of this is a URI of >> type dct:Standard, so it should be a URI for the ISO spec. >> >> one social: if one wants to follow BP31 - enrich data by generating >> new data - but that person is not the original data provider - i'd >> recommend that they make their contribution public (rather than >> republishing the whole dataset), with a machine readable provenance >> description of the work, and contribute the enrichment back to the >> original data provider. >> >> Cheers, >> >> m. >> Michel Dumontier, PhD >> Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics) >> Stanford University >> http://dumontierlab.com >> >> >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group very recently published >>> three documents in what in the old days we'd have referred to as Last >>> Call. >>> There are two vocabularies (that will be Notes) and one Best Practice >>> Document which is on the Rec Track. >>> >>> I *believe* that the two vocabularies [1, 2] will not need your >>> attention. >>> They set out a data model and terms used - which, like any vocabulary, >>> can >>> be localised. The Best Practices document refers specifically to locale >>> in >>> one of its BPs and it's that one [3] for which we specifically are >>> seeking >>> your review please. I don't think the doc as a whole will need a detailed >>> review - but of course you're better judges of that than we are. Its >>> normative content is the intended outcomes, which are written in very >>> general terms. We then offer *possible implementations*, none of which >>> define new technologies. >>> >>> It's a loooong doc, so I hope for all our sakes that I'm right that a >>> full >>> review is not necessary - especially as we're hoping to move to CR for >>> the >>> Best Practices Doc by the end of June so we're asking for reviews by >>> Sunday >>> 12th. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Phil. >>> >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-dqv-20160519/ >>> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-duv-20160519/ >>> [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160519/#LocaleParametersMetadata >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Phil Archer >>> W3C Data Activity Lead >>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ >>> >>> http://philarcher.org >>> +44 (0)7887 767755 >>> @philarcher1 >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 27 June 2016 22:27:44 UTC