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

Re: Code lists in the UCR

From: <yaso@nic.br>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 13:19:06 -0300
Message-ID: <5514317A.6040107@nic.br>
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Agree, Phil


On 03/26/2015 01:13 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
> A long long time ago I raised an issue which should really have been 
> an action item to consider whether the use case doc sufficiently 
> called for code lists to be used where possible cf. free text.
>
> We have a requirement at [1] called R-VocabReference that is defined as:
>
> Existing reference vocabularies should be reused where possible
>
> It is motivated by a long list of use cases that, as far as I can see, 
> do not explicitly call for the use of controlled vocabularies but 
> most, if not al, imply it. For example, the Wind Characterization 
> Study UC says "The DMF catalog relies on linked open vocabularies and 
> domain vocabularies to make the study data searchable." The Open City 
> data Pipeline says "Added value comes from comparable open datasets 
> being combined."
>
> I would put "using code lists/preferred values from a list rather than 
> a free text box" is a truth we hold to be self-evident and therefore 
> we probably have enough evidence to include this in the BPs?
>
> So my proposal is, rather than creating/finding another use case that 
> calls explicitly for the use of code lists, simply to expand the 
> definition of this requirement thus:
>
> R-VocabReference
>   Existing reference vocabularies and code lists should be reused 
> where possible.
>
> i.e. just insert "and code lists".
>
> WDYT?
>
> Phil
>
> Tracker: this is issue-48
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-VocabReference
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 16:18:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 26 March 2015 16:18:10 UTC