Re: BP vocabulary section - update

Hi Bernadette,

Thank you for the edition!

Maybe that's because of my background, but to me the two BPs you've removed seemed natural. And I was not the one creating them ;-)
At least reuse vocabularies is a no-brainer. Versioning may be harder to define but seems quite needed.

Even if we don't have the time to flesh them out, it may be interesting to leave them in. I don't remember by who, but it was said that even skeletal best practices can be useful, and I'd tend to agree (if we want to get feedback on them).

Plus, we have direct requirements for these two things, haven't we?

Cheers,

Antoine

On 1/15/15 8:34 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
> Hello Antoine and Eric,
>
> Thank you very much for your contribution!
>
> I just reviewed the Data Vocabularies section and I made some minor
> changes. I also removed two BP (reuse vocabularies and versioning
> vocabularies) because they were too vague. I'm not sure if we still
> have to improve these BP for this version of the document. If you have
> time to work on this, please let me know.
>
> Notet that the R-VocabVersion requirement can be covered by one of the
> Data Versioning BP.
>
> I agree that there is an overlap with Best Practices for Publishing
> Linked Data [3] and this overlap should be discussed. Maybe, we should
> discuss in the intro of the BP section because there will be overlap
> with other BP (ex: Data Identification).
>
> cheers,
> Bernadette
>
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#VOCABULARIES
>
> 2015-01-14 20:47 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have made a lot of edits to the section on data vocabularies in the BP
>> document.
>>
>> - heavily edited all paragraphs in the intro
>>
>> - included Eric Kauz' input for a couple of best practices (thanks, Eric!)
>> [1]
>>
>> - added a new best practices as I had suggested in an email earlier [2] as
>> there was no objection
>>
>> - added an issue on the overlap between our BP and the Best Practices for
>> Publishing Linked Data [3]. The issue is not yet in the tracker - if anyone
>> can create it it's highly welcome!
>>
>>
>> I am still not 100% happy with the result. The BPs should have more flesh,
>> there's a lot I would like to add or change in the rest, especially
>> considering what Mark and I have done at [4]. But clearly I don't have time:
>> I have jumped in to help on this section at the last moment, this was not
>> scheduled in my week :-(
>> I believe however that for a first version of the BP document, it should be
>> alright. At least we have some content and BPs for the section now, which
>> have been contributed/reviewed by more than one person!
>>
>>
>> Finally, I must apologize to the editors: I have created a pull request in
>> Github, but didn't dare to merge it. A couple of us have been editing the
>> doc at the same time, and I don't have the time to resolve potential
>> conflicts. For the record, my changes are only in section 7.4, and in case
>> it's needed my own copy of the BP is updated at
>> https://github.com/aisaac/dwbp/blob/gh-pages/bp.html
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0078.html
>> [2]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0045.html
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#VOCABULARIES
>> [4]
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Making_controlled_vocabularies_accessible_as_URI_sets
>>
>> On 1/9/15 4:11 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Ig, Eric, Ghislain, (cc Mark in case he can jump in)
>>>
>>> It seems the call today made me a de facto coordinator for this section...
>>>
>>> The four of us are now listed as contributors
>>> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Call_for_BP_Contributors
>>>
>>> Bernadette says that this section needs reviewing, and filling in best
>>> practices. I just had a brief look; enough to understand she's right.
>>>
>>> My questions are:
>>> - are you ready to review this section and provide suggestions for
>>> changes, if needed? and/or
>>> - are you ready to contribute to the best practices?
>>>
>>> This needs to happen before next Tuesday.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, a question for Ig: is the current text at
>>> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVocabularies
>>> resulting from only your work, possibly incorporating the outcome of the
>>> discussion we had back in December?
>>> Or have others contributed, in which case we should include them in the
>>> discussion?
>>>
>>> Thanks for the input,
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 16 January 2015 08:26:10 UTC