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

Re: Best Practice 1: Provide metadata

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:18:19 -0000
Message-ID: <07b0978fc2301ba2ba8ea241c3d731c3.squirrel@webmail.sophia.w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:31 UTC