Re: Code lists in the UCR

+1
Em 26/03/2015 16:08, "Laufer" <laufer@globo.com> escreveu:

> +1
>
> Em quinta-feira, 26 de março de 2015, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> escreveu:
>
>> 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
>> --
>>
>>
>> Phil Archer
>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>
>> http://philarcher.org
>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>> @philarcher1
>>
>>
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>