Re: Some more examples done

Hi Phil,

Thanks a lot for your message and for your contribution!

>
> I've been spending some more time looking at the BP doc - it's looking
> better all the time.


Thanks :)


> I know you've done a lot on it recently, so much so that I can't merge my
> changes. Don't care what people say, if 2 people are working on the doc at
> the same time, 99% of the time one of you is going to trash your local GH
> fork and start again. C'est la vie :-)
>
> Anyway, you can see what I've done at
> http://philarcher1.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#DataIdentifiers
>
> The first two BPs there now have examples that build on the running
> example of My City data.
>

Yes, it's gonna be difficult to merge because now I am reviewing the whole
document and I'm trying to include more examples and the BP benefits. In
this case, it's better if I include the examples that tou created on the
version that I'm working now.


> As a result of this, I've made a note that I'd really like to change the
> many instances of :dataset-001 to :timetable-001 (and equivalent changes
> throughout). This is because it makes more sense in the context of a
> persistent URI for the dataset.
>

Yes! I like the idea! I'm gonna do this.

>
> I've also been working with Christophe on examples for the Data
> preservation section. See
> http://philarcher1.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#EvaluateCandD
>
> I have more I want to do tomorrow before the meeting but that's where I'm
> up to for now.
>

Great Phil!  I am really happy with the examples.


> I also want to update the SVG diagram and turn those lists of benefits
> into HTML/CSS rather than the current image.
>

It sounds great! I used the png because I'm not really good with svg or
CSS.


>
> And those SVG icons for the benefits should, I think, be separate files
> and incorporated as <img src="....svg" rather than written inline, no?
>

Yes! I'm gonna do this.


>
> And, finally, native-speaker pedantry coming up...
>
> Trustworthy should really be "Trustworthiness" but that's very long. How
> about simply 'Trust'?
>
> And one more thing, 'Accessibility' at W3C usually refers to the
> accessibility of Web pages (WCAG and all that). Would you be OK with simply
> calling that benefit 'Access'?
>

I think it's ok! I was not really happy with the use of "Accessibility".
Let's use Access and wait for the feedback ;)


Cheers,
Berna





>
> Cheers
>
> Phil.
>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>



-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------