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

Re: [dwbp] Suggests additional content for BP1 implementation (#87)

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias.moro@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:08:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAa1XznUCGA90_h4toaTdLeW2drvRPoU+tg1Q9xB=uxu0PSubA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Good to talk about multilingualism, but not necessarily in a BP about
reusing standard terms, although happy to keep that part anyway (in a more
neutral way as that's something you can easily do with other technologies
as well).

As said, I think BP#ProvideMetadata should be pointing to any specific
model because that's not the place. The list doesn't really tell people
which one to use because all those may be valid options depending on the
specific use case we don't know beforehand.

WRT schema.org we could make it the other way around if you want, just
telling people when to use DCAT instead of schema.org (a question to which
I'm really not sure of the answer as well). If your aim is specifically to
target your metadata at linked data browsers the use DCAT and so on. I
think the technology stack you are currently using may heavily influence
the final decision for both cases.

Best,
 CI.

On 22 January 2015 at 18:24, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> 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 19:08:49 UTC

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