- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:18:19 -0000
- To: "Laufer" <laufer@globo.com>
- Cc: "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>, "Public DWBP WG" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Oh crap ... that's what comes of writing in a hurry. You are quite correct Laufer, sorry. In my very unconvincing defence, Void does include info about vocabs used and exampke SPARQL queries but that's no excuse. I will change the text - unless you can get to it before me. I've just landed in Greece for a 2 day workshop. Phil > 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 >> >> > > > -- > . . . .. . . > . . . .. > . .. . > -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse typos.
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2015 15:18:30 UTC