Re: Best Practice 1: Provide metadata

Ok.

2015-01-14 15:02 GMT-02:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>:

> I'd be grateful if you did it for 2 reasons:
>
> 1. I'm not in the ideal place to do it this week;
> 2. I like collaborative text rather than one person's text.
>
> So please go ahead :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil.
>
>
> On 14/01/2015 15:45, Laufer wrote:
>
>> I will change the text - unless you can get to it before me
>>>
>> Tell me what you prefer...
>>
>> Laufer
>>
>> 2015-01-14 13:18 GMT-02:00 Phil Archer <phila@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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>



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