- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 22:48:56 +0200
- To: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Bernadette, Not much for me to react on. What you say seems to go in the right direction. I'm looking forwards to see more progress on what you mention! All the best, Antoine On 7/1/14 9:00 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote: > Hello Antoine, > > Thanks for your comments and feedback! > > About the guidelines: these are very fine. I would just emphasize too much on a strict classification of generic versus specific for now: a best practice needs to be as precise as possible. Categorizing best practices in advance along that axis seems a bit unnecessary/dangerous now (see the question marks as in "Usage information (about resources ?)"). What is certainly useful is to clarify the object of the best practice (vocabularies, datasets) in the best practice itself. > > > Yes, maybe we can have just Best Practices without saying that they are specific or general. When a best practice applies to more than one resource then it may have specific implementations according to the resource. > > Which leads to a couple of other editorial remarks: > - the datasets BPs are sometimes using the word "data". I know it's fine, but better make the word use as stable as possible! > - the definition of "resource" appears 3 times. > - you can also make the text more efficient by removing the first "The Best Practices that apply to Resources are called General Best Practices." (which has its own bullet later). > > > I'm gonna rewrite the dataset specific best practices, then they will refer to resources instead of datasets. Let's see if it makes sense... > > > I have some comments on the relevant of some links between Requirements and BP (for example R-FormatOpen and R-VocabOpen are not exactly the same "open" and thus GBP3 is not a match for both). But before that perhaps it's better to all agree on the requirements first (it could well be that R-FormatOpen and R-VocabOpen have actually the same "open", but their description is not precise). > > > Yes, it could be nice to have an agreement on the requirements first. > > > And finally the big question, as I've tried to organize our pointers for the data quality work and realized we have two BP pages: what is the relation between this newly created BP page > https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/__wiki/Best_practices_guidelines <https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Best_practices_guidelines> > and the previous one created after the F2F meeting > https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/__wiki/Best_practices_table <https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Best_practices_table> > ? > > > Best practices presented on the page created during the F2F are more detailed and some of them are very similar. I suggest to group them in the same way that requirements were grouped. In fact, these best practices are similar to the use case requirements. > > kind regards, > Bernadette > > > > Kind regards, > > Antoine > > > On 6/12/14 5:03 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote: > > Hi all, > > I created a new wiki page [1] with some guidelines that may help us define the structure of the Best Practices document. This page also shows an attempt to map the use case requirements to possible best practices. > > I'd like to ask you to take a look and if possible to give some feedback. > > Thank you! > Bernadette > > [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/__wiki/Best_practices_guidelines <https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Best_practices_guidelines> > > -- > Bernadette Farias Lóscio > Centro de Informática > Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil > ------------------------------__------------------------------__---------------- > > > > > > -- > Bernadette Farias Lóscio > Centro de Informática > Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 20:49:43 UTC