- From: Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 19:34:18 -0300
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org" <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
Dear Frans, thank you indeed. The resolution of the Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group is that it is out of the scope for this document [1]. Kind regards, BP Editors [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html On 27/05/16 12:22, Phil Archer wrote: > Hi Frans, > > Thanks for this. > > We had a telco a little earlier today and discussed your comment - so > far without any resolution. There is sympathy with the point you raise > but it's debatable whether it applies specifically to data on the Web > as opposed to numeric data in general. Plus we're concerned that there > is pretty much no time to create and receive reviews of a new BP. > > No definite decision yet though! > > By copying this reply to the DWBPs comment list, it is already in the > system. no need to send it again unless you want to add more detail. > > Thanks > > Phil. > > On 27/05/2016 11:05, Frans Knibbe wrote: >> Hello Phil, all, >> >> Thanks, the document looks great and hope many will read it and take >> it to >> heart. >> >> One thing I miss is the advice to use significant figures in numerical >> data. It is an easy way to make the data match their uncertainty, and in >> many cases it helps to compact data too. Numerical data with the wrong >> number of significant digits is a very common problem in geographical >> data >> (e.g. geographic coordinates with nanometre precision). >> >> Should I post a personal comment about this to >> public-dwbp-comments@w3.org? >> Or do want to comment on significant figures as a group? >> >> Regards, >> Frans >> >> >> >> 2016-05-25 10:26 GMT+02:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As you may have seen, last Thursday the DWBP WG published a new >>> version on >>> its BP doc and supporting vocabularies. These are now stable with a >>> couple >>> of specific issues in the vocabs and no known issues for the BP doc >>> which >>> is expected to transition to Candidate Recommendation next month. >>> >>> So we're now in the final call for comments ahead of the call for >>> implementations which comes next. >>> >>> The input provided by the individuals in the To line of this mail are >>> already acknowledged but if there are further comments, please get >>> them to >>> the WG by 12 June. I'm thinking in particular of the alignment with >>> SDW BP >>> to make sure that the latter sensibly builds on DWBP. >>> >>> Please see >>> >>> Data on the Web Best Practices >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160519/ >>> >>> Data Quality Vocabulary >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-dqv-20160519/ >>> >>> Dataset Usage vocabulary >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-duv-20160519/ >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Phil. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> 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 22:34:53 UTC