Best Practice 1: Provide metadata

Hi, Phil,

In the text of BP1, VoID is listed as suited for the description of the
structure of metadata but I think VoID is more similar to DCAT, but for
Linked Data. It describes the dataset as a whole.

Am I wrong?

Best Regards,
Laufer

2015-01-13 11:00 GMT-02:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>:

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


-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .