Re: [DWBP] ACTION-121 and ACTION-124

Hi Bernadette,

Thank you for your comments.

My answers are inline.

Cheers,
Ig

2014-12-07 18:20 GMT-02:00 Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>:

> Hi Ig,
>
> Thanks for your contribution!
>
> In the Intro sectio, you mention: "It focuses on the description of Best
> Practices to two different types of audiences: publishers and consumers of
> data vocabularies."
>
> I am not sure if we need to specify a new audience or if we can keep the
> audience mentioned in the beginning of the document. Besides, I'm not sure
> if it is necessary to make a difference between "publishers and consumers
> of data vocabularies." and "publishers and consumers of data on the Web."
> What do you think?
>

I agree with you and I changed this part to fit with the Audience described
in https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/2._Audience



>
> I agree with you that there is an intersection between BP for Publishing
> LD [3] and the ones for Data on the Web. However, our BP template is more
> detailed than the description of BP for Publishing LD and DWBP also have
> a "How to Test" section.
>

I totally agree. Our description of BP is very good and informative.



> I suppose that we can extend the BP proposed in [3]. In this case, our
> document will have a reference to [3] and an explanation about the BP
> extension. A good exercise could be:
>
> Step 1. to map the BP from [3] and the requirements from [2] to identify
> the intersection.
>
> Step 2. Next, you can create a new list of requirements for data
> vocabularies based on the ones from [3] that don't have a mapping with our
> requirments together with new requirements that you think could be relevant.
>
> Step 3. To associate the new requirements with existing use cases. You can
> do this by yourself or you can aks help to use cases authors.
>
> Step 4. If there are requirements without use cases, then decide if we're
> gonna ask for new use cases to cover these requirements or not. I believe
> that requirements that are not covered by at least one use case will be
> discarded.
>
> Does it make sense for you?
>

This makes sense for me and I think it is a good approach to identify new
BP related to Data Vocabularies. The problem is only the step 3, because
the use cases are very abstract. Even though, I think it is possible to
follow these steps. I would also add a new (conditional) step, which is to
create/propose new use cases connected to new BP from [3].

Should the chairs create a new ACTION for me?

Cheers again. :-)
Ig


>
> kind regards,
> Bernadette
>
>
> 2014-12-06 12:22 GMT-03:00 Ig Ibert Bittencourt <ig.ibert@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> This e-mail is to inform that I did the Wiki Document related to BP Data
>> Vocabularies [1]. This document refers to a set of best practices for
>> publishing and consuming Data Vocabularies on the Web. However, I only
>> described the Best Practices already identified in the First Round of Use
>> Cases [2]. Indeed, there are some open information yet.
>>
>> I also read the BP for Publishing LD [3] and I believe there are some
>> Best Practices there that we could consider for our BP Document. If you
>> can, take a look at the Vocabulary section and the list of Best Practices
>> related to Vocabulary Checklist and Vocabulary Creation.
>>
>> Please, feel free to add or change what you think as relevant.
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/BP_Data_Vocabularies
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#requirements-1
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#VOCABULARIES
>>
>> All the very best,
>> Ig
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>



-- 

Ig Ibert Bittencourt
Professor Adjunto III - Instituto de Computação/Universidade Federal de
Alagoas (UFAL)
Vice-Coordenador da Comissão Especial de Informática na Educação
Líder do Centro de Excelência em Tecnologias Sociais
Co-fundador da Startup MeuTutor Soluções Educacionais LTDA.