- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:22:10 +0100
- To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
+1 Antoine On 3/26/15 5:19 PM, yaso@nic.br wrote: > 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 16:22:41 UTC