- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 21:48:01 -0400
- To: DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
hello all.
On 2015-08-14 20:50, Laufer wrote:
> If we have BPs that orient publishers to provide metadata about
> structure, license, etc., to provide version information, and a lot of
> other BPs, why we have to explain what data is ruled out or ruled in?
> Why we have to forbid some publishers of following our BPs?
thanks for this, laufer, that was exactly what i was thinking when
reading annette's email. what's the problem with legislation documents,
if all the BP talks about is how to represent them well in a webby way
as part of a legislative dataset? all the BP should talk about are the
webby parts, so it can safely stay away from any issues that pertain to
a specific aspect of the data that's not specifically about being webby.
starting from https://github.com/dret/webdata, let's see how you could
talk about webby legislative documents:
1: Linkable
publish all your documents at stable URIs, so that they can be
referenced. at the very least, give them unique and stable URIs, if you
don't want to make them directly accessible.
for legislation, fragments (any news about this from the group, btw?)
would be very essential, so that references can not just refer to
documents, but all relevant parts of it.
but again, reference culture in legislation is complex and hard, but
they should think about the things they want to reference (as resources
and sub-resources), and make sure all of those get stable identifiers.
the BP would simply tell them *to do it*, not *how to do it* for their
particular scenario.
2: Parseable
probably use XML which is a good foundation for document-ish content. if
you better like SGML or whatever floats your boat, that's fine, too.
3: Understandable
use or define a documented format for your legal documents. use whatever
schema language makes you happy (DTD, XSD, RNG, ...), but define and
document the schema so that people accessing your data know what the XML
represents.
4: Linked
when cross-referencing legislation (such as a law from a ruling), use
the URI of the referenced resource so that references are established at
the web level.
5: Usable
label your document with a license, so that others know how they can use
it. there are many licenses to choose from, and picking any one of those
is better than not picking one at all.
so, what's the difficulty in making these recommendations, and maybe
adding more that's in the BP but not (currently) in web data? BP
wouldn't have to go out on a limb and try to explain how to design an
XML schema, that's a different issue. so why exclude this scenario?
cheers,
dret.
--
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 |
| UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) |
| http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2015 01:48:32 UTC