W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > January 2015

More BPs added

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:00:56 +0000
Message-ID: <54B51708.7040403@w3.org>
To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br>, Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
Bernadette, Newton,

I've added some more BPs to the metadata section today. There's one more 
I really want to write ASAP which will be about providing structural 
metadata (what Mark Harrison called intrinsic metadata). That will 
include links to things like VoID for RDF datasets, the CSV work for 
those files etc.

IMO the doc is looking better but still needs work before Friday.

Personally, I don't think we should include incomplete BP templates in 
the FPWD. I'd rather see a list of the BPs to be inserted at that pint 
in the doc, so, for example in data formats just a simple list like:

Provide machine-readable data
Provide data in standardized formats
Provide data in open formats
Provide data in multiple formats
Provide locale parameters

(that list prompts all sorts of questions by the way - why aren't we 
just using the 5 star model? Shouldn't locale parameters be in the 
metadata section? etc.)

I think that's a more honest reflection of the current situation and 
allows people to see which BPs have been drafted and therefore in need 
of review (or ridicule!).

@Christophe, might you have time to add normative statements to the BPs 
you wrote? i.e. add in the RFC 2119 keywords in the intended outcome 

And, wrt. Issue-115, IMHO the 'What' section can be merged with the Why 
- I think in all cases, unless you/others think differently??



Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead

+44 (0)7887 767755
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 13:00:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 January 2015 13:00:57 UTC