- From: Carlos Iglesias <contact@carlosiglesias.es>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:58:06 +0100
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Carlos Iglesias <contact@carlosiglesias.es>
- Message-ID: <CAAa1Xzm5qecSMb3USaqkw5DkRON9-PTdQKkYsdipbk0O6-un_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Yes, the current text talks about models (or vocabularies), but the BP1 title is about providing metadata, not about what metadata which is covered by BP3. So what I expect to find in BP1 is guidance on *how* to provide metadata, not on *what* metadata to provide, which is broadly covered by many other ones (including BP3) On 22 January 2015 at 19:24, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > I realise I answered the wrong issue below. That was about your > suggestions for Use standard terms to provide metadata. > > So now I've messed up the threads, sorry. > > Anyway, I'm afraid I don't agree with your suggestions for Provide > Metadata either. > > > The current text talks about vocabularies - I know you prefer models - for > doing things, it does not talk about encodings. Your suggested additions > talk about how to encode the metadata. RDFa and Microdata are two ways of > embedding DCAT, VoID, Tabular etc. so I don't think they can form part of > the same list. Is there a vocabulary for describing APIs? I know one - > Hydra [1], and I'd be happy to see that listed as a means of describing > APIs, but again, the serialisation is irrelevant IMO. > > Any comments from anyone else? > > [1] http://www.w3.org/community/hydra/ > > > > On 22/01/2015 17:24, Phil Archer wrote: > >> Moving the conversation to the WG's mailing list (please don't use >> GitHub's issue tracker - it just confuses things). >> >> -1 to this change. >> >> The original text talked about multilingualism as well as >> specialisations of vocabularies (something that has been lost). The list >> of vocabs doesn't really tell people which one to use and when. >> BP#ProvideMetadata already points to DCAT and VoID. And I think if we're >> going to cite schema.org - which I'm happy to do - then we should tell >> people when to use that rather than DCAT (a question to which I'm really >> not sure of the answer). >> >> And so on. >> >> Overall, I think we should be more specific, giving the criteria ine >> should use to make a selection and then point to a possible solution. >> So, if you want DCAT but want to include versioning then use ADMS (which >> is a DCAT profile). If your aim is specifically to target your metadata >> at search engines then use schema.org and so on. >> >> I don't think the DCAT-AP is relevant here. >> >> Phil. >> >> On 22/01/2015 16:25, Carlos Laufer wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> 2015-01-22 14:17 GMT-02:00 carlosiglesias <notifications@github.com>: >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>>> You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/87 >>>> Commit Summary >>>> >>>> - Suggests additional content for BP1 implementation >>>> >>>> File Changes >>>> >>>> - *M* bp.html <https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/87/files#diff-0> >>>> (9) >>>> >>>> Patch Links: >>>> >>>> - https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/87.patch >>>> - https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/87.diff >>>> >>>> — >>>> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/87>. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -- > > > Phil Archer > W3C Data Activity Lead > http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ > > http://philarcher.org > +44 (0)7887 767755 > @philarcher1 > -- --- Carlos Iglesias. Internet & Web Consultant. +34 687 917 759 contact@carlosiglesias.es @carlosiglesias http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 18:58:35 UTC