- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 01:10:19 +0100
- To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Bernadette, I'd say that if a list of value becomes sufficiently important to deserve documentation, it is certainly worth considering it as a vocabulary. This would solve your issue. Or at least reduce it to an editorial issue rather than adding a BP: the section on vocabulary should cover 'lists' well enough. I have tried to add a reference to 'code list' there. It's probably not enough. That's part of the actions I've noted for myself at [1]. Please make suggestions! Best, Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Making_controlled_vocabularies_accessible_as_URI_sets On 1/14/15 5:13 PM, Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > dwbp-ISSUE-120 (BernadetteLoscio): BP Document metadata x BP Provide metadata in different formats x BP Document Vocabularies [Best practices document(s)] > > http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/120 > > Raised by: Bernadette Farias Loscio > On product: Best practices document(s) > > I think we should discuss the intersection among these BP. > > 1. For me it is not clear the difference between Document Metadata and Provide Metadata for humans as mentioned in the BP Provide metadata in different formats. > > 2. The BP Document Metadata mentions vocabularies and controlled lists. Since there is a specific BP to Document Vocabularies, then maybe we should have a specific BP to Document Controlled Lists. > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 00:10:49 UTC