- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 17:02:12 +0100
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br>, Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br>
I've been trying to catch up with last week's minutes etc. On the comments received, it's necessary to show that we have responded to the commentators. This should be done by simply replying to their e-mail, including the relevant archive (remember that only WG members can post to *this* list, but there is the http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/ list which is open to everyone. In an ideal world, there's a reply from the commentator indicating that they're happy with the resolution. if there's no reply, OK, we move on (documents don't get held up). Also, I'm not surprised to see that the context section is throwing up questions. For me, the diagram and associated text should be in the section on data versioning, not a separate section about the context of the whole document. How would you feel about moving it to http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning ? And then adding an issue saying that this is something we're keen to hear comments about, including comments on the potential use of DCAT+PAV. Bigger question: does the WG feel motivated and able to develop DCAT 1.1 to include versioning? Phil. -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2015 16:02:07 UTC