- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 12:49:42 +0200
- To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi everyone, Could this be put on the agenda for today, if you're searching for some discussion on the DQV part? Actually I believe it's a more general issue than just our voc. Do we want to use Github for issues, and for what? I was not the one having added the link in the header of the DQV draft, so I'm agnostic. Actually as a conservative measure and without further input from the group, I'll go for the easiest option, i.e. removing the whole "other locations" part from the header. Best, Antoine On 8/14/15 12:43 PM, Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > dwbp-ISSUE-197 (issues-github): Issue tracking and Github [Quality & Granularity Vocabulary] > > http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/197 > > Raised by: Antoine Isaac > On product: Quality & Granularity Vocabulary > >>From Christoph Lange at > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2015Aug/0004.html > > ======== > > Dear all, > > Antoine Isaac on 2015-08-14 12:05: >> The W3C Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group has recently >> published a first draft for a Data Quality Vocabulary (DQV): >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-vocab-dqv-20150625/ > > I was going to make a minor suggestion for improvement: in the "Other > locations" header section, you could change the link "File a bug" to > point to the GitHub issue tracker. (I wouldn't point it to > .../issues/new, to encourage people to first look whether an issue has > been filed already.) > > However then I realised that this GitHub project doesn't even have issue > tracking set up. > > Cheers, > > Christoph > > > > >
Received on Friday, 14 August 2015 10:50:11 UTC