Re: dwbp-ISSUE-144: There is a technological bias in several parts of the document [Best practices document(s)]

Dear Carlos, Bernadette, and all.

We need to remember this document is about the best practices for data *on
the web*, and not best practices for data on the internet.

Considering this, IMO any technologies mentioned in the World Wide Web
Architecture [1] document should NOT be technology agnostic on the DWBP.
That includes terms such as HTTP, URLs and URIs, which should be
specifically and explicitly addressed (and not just IDs and protocols in
general).

As for the technological bias regarding the SW and LD, how about moving the
parts that are specific about those to separate, non-normative sections
dedicated to publishing LD? I agree that they could be confusing for LD
outsiders, but I still think those could be useful practices when
publishing LD, and there's no point on having a separate "Linked Data on
the Web Best Practices", or is there?

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/

Best regards,
Augusto Herrmann

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
wrote:
Hi Carlos,

Thank you very much for your detailed review of the BP document! We're
gonna review the document again and we're gonna try to remove as much
as possible the techonological bias that you mentioned in your
comments. Some parts of the text were changed already, but we're gonna
make another review.

I have a comment about vocabularies and data models, but I'm gonna
discuss this in a more appropriate thread, ok?

Cheers,
Bernadette







2015-01-30 10:51 GMT-03:00 Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias.moro@gmail.com>:
> Hi Caroline and everyone,
>
> Sorry but the belated response, but I was heavily traveling during the
week
> (hint: ccy'ing to the personal email address may also help to get quicker
> responses when you want to address someone specifically :)
> I have just made a quick&dirty review to get you some pointers to specific
> examples. You can see the results at
>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ecwweAM5t4UVFEjcXnFhXmCUBnRDvwZ1smRLtiKkBEI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Sorry for the GDoc, I know it is not really friendly with the W3C
archiving
> policy, but this time I just needed to keep this time and effort wise in
> order to keep advancing. Also this has been widely discussed before
through
> the mailing list and specific issues raised and tracked, so I expect Phil
> may forgive me just for this time.
>
> Please note that I'm focusing only on the editorial tech-bias review here,
> but my other points and issues raised before [1-6] still remain valid as
> well (although looks like some have been already fixed).
>
> [1] - [
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0186.html]
> [2] - [
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0225.html]
> [3] - [
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0178.html]
> [4] - [
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0183.html]
> [5] - [
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0264.html]
> [6] - [
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0177.html]
>
> Best,
>  CI.