RE: Code lists in the UCR

+1

And by the way, this facilitates multilinguality.

Regards
Tomas 

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:14 PM
To: Public DWBP WG
Subject: Code lists in the UCR

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

Received on Friday, 27 March 2015 12:56:49 UTC