Re: comments on section 7.4

Hi Antoine,

You've done a great job incorporating my comments. See reactions below
(only to those comments for which I still think we need to do some
tweaking).

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

>
>>
>  However, I do not see any problem to keep the second part related to
>> "Richer Data", because an example was given for explaining that.
>>
>
>
> I agree, I've kept it.
>
>
The problem is that in the example the data itself does not become
"richer". There is a richer description of data (localized description)...
let's replace by something more neutral, say,

instead of "They can also provide a way to easily create richer data."

 we could say "They can also serve to facilitate the use of data."  or
"They can also serve to improve the usability of datasets"... than the
example will make more sense and we will not be calling data itself
"richer" without explaining what that would entail.


>>     BP12, possible approach to implementation:
>>     Add that diagrams may also serve the purpose of documenting
>> vocabularies. An example is the use of a subset of UML to represent the W3C
>> Org Ontology. (By the way, we had certain conventions established in GLD to
>> define the UML diagram which could be part of a detailed BP for this.)
>>
>>
>> +1, but I think you are talking about BP11, right?
>>
>
>
> Diagrams are an excellent suggestion! More details on GLD conventions (or
> just a pointer) could be helpful indeed, but I don't have time to dig them
> up.



Great. There is just a typo in the text that you added for this
("vidual"->"visual"). We can discuss later whether to add the diagramming
conventions.



>
> This BP is 'do not overformalize vocabularies', it is not 'do never
> formalize vocabularies'! I agree with you formalization is useful in
> general. It's just that it shouldn't be overused.
> The point is indeed to find the right level, and I think it matches pretty
> well Ig's point on audience, domain, kind of use etc.
>
> I have tried to do some re-wording in the lines you suggest, because I
> believe our perspectives are not fully incompatible. Some of the sentences
> were indeed confusing and Carlo's suggestions helped me a lot to clarify.
> I've even changed the title.
>
> If you still fully disagree with having the BP included then we should
> remove it. If you agree with the general idea but still dislike the
> expression it would seem fair to keep it but raising a formal issue in the
> document, calling for readers to support or reject the best practice, or
> contribute enhancements.
>
> Right now I have put an issue on whether the BP should be re-written in a
> more technology neutral way. I really don't have the time to do more today,
> sorry...
>
>
Thanks Antoine, I think you did a great "weaving" of our perspectives in
the text.

"Intended outcome" and "How to test" are still biased. Perhaps we can leave
it as is for now and add an issue to investigate this in the future.

I am finding it difficult to understand why the relevant requirements for
this BP are: Relevant requirements: R-VocabReference
<http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-VocabReference>, R-VocabDocum
<http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-VocabDocum>, R-QualityComparable
<http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-QualityComparable>



> Best,
>
> Antoine
>

regards,
João Paulo