- From: Carlos Iglesias <contact@carlosiglesias.es>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 22:47:03 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAa1Xz=LR3QN_jUDOSwGjg9pjWt5RMHDvf7FAp6GoceAiUzNzg@mail.gmail.com>
Hello everyone, On 9 February 2015 at 22:56, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > > I thought we had agreed that [1] was a WG Note and therefore it would be > fair if our group would re-introduce some of it, so as to push some of its > content to the next level of W3C recommendation... > Yes, no problem with re-introducing any content from there as LD implementation techniques. Again I agree on the point of trying to be as general as possible. But I > still like to relate to concrete stuff while reading best practices (and > not only in the implementation section). If I see 'Web identifier', the > fact that 'URI' comes right next to it reassures me. And you will see that in the implementation techniques as well. > Actually a BP document seeking to avoid reference to the base technology > of the time might make me skeptical. After all, if the base technology > change, then best practices could become obsolete, no? I'd rather have a > new group try and refresh the best practices if this happens. > Not necessarily, ideally that shouldn't no be happening indeed. If you have a look for example at the MWBP you will see very few technology references in the general discourse (there are lots in the BPS contents of course), apart from maybe references to URIs. If you have a look at the WCAG 2.0 guidelines as another example, there are no technology references, and that was completely on purpose to avoid tech-dependencies and the problems WCAG 1.0 had by that reason. Keep tech neutrality to the maximum extent is just a desirable BP while developing BPs IMO. > I see Carlos has answered some of my comments on the Google doc he started. > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ecwweAM5t4UVFEjcXnFhXmCUBnRDv > wZ1smRLtiKkBEI/ > I think we are somehow converging on many points, actually. > I'm not answering right now, however: (1) I've got no time for it now :-( > ; (2) I think the matter is worth more than a dialogue between the two of > us. I'm curious what others would think of some of the comments! > I think that would be a really good approach. I'm pointing there to every single place in the document where I think there was a tech bias, so it would be great to see what others think, what are the cases where tech refs may be indispensable and the reasons for that, as Antoine has already done. Discussing on the specific cases may be more productive in order to advance than just keep the dissertation on tech independency in abstract. Best, CI. > Antoine > > On 2/5/15 12:33 AM, Carlos Iglesias wrote: > >> Hello Augusto, >> >> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, please find some additional >> comments below: >> >> 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). >> >> >> I tend to disagree here. Principles remain, technologies evolve. Good >> quality BPs should keep tech agnostic as even the most basic Web >> technologies may vary or evolve in the future (e.g. HTTPS or IRIs) >> >> 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? >> >> >> In fact there is no point on having a separate BPs for Linked Data >> document, specially because that already exists [1], but also because there >> is absolutely no problem in having specific SW and LD related techniques in >> the implementation sections document, the only problem is with having any >> technological bias (SW/LD or any other) in all other parts of the document >> that should be just explanatory tech-neutral BPs. >> >> >> [1] - [http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/] >> >> >> [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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/1ecwweAM5t4UVFEjcXnFhXmCUBnRDv >> wZ1smRLtiKkBEI/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. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> --- >> >> Carlos Iglesias. >> Internet & Web Consultant. >> +34 687 917 759 >> contact@carlosiglesias.es <mailto:contact@carlosiglesias.es> >> @carlosiglesias >> http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en >> > > -- --- Carlos Iglesias. Internet & Web Consultant. +34 687 917 759 contact@carlosiglesias.es @carlosiglesias http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2015 21:47:33 UTC