- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 21:21:59 +0200
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jeremy, Actually your last comment shows the issue. The fact that the quality framework and voc are related to academic research will help showing that the ideas are good. But it not help convince about the long-term sustainability of the voc on the web. Even university libraries, while doing much better than a decade ago [1] have not much proven record in term of maintaining web-based vocabularies. Cheers, Antoine [1] For the anecdote, the longer-term availability of my own thesis is only guaranteed by the existence of a microfilmed version, in a vault in the North of France. Not very web-friendly :-) On 5/22/15 9:39 PM, Debattista, Jeremy wrote: > Sure its doable. In any case the vocabulary is part of the quality framework which is also part of my phd > > Cheers, > Jeremy > > On 22 May 2015, at 17:11, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > >> Some sort of pledge of persistence, pref backed by university library. >> Should include commitment not to delete terms (deprecation and >> clarification OK). >> >> Doable? >> >> Phil >> >> >> >>> Hi Phil, >>> >>> On 22 May 2015, at 15:02, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On reusing DaQ: the fact that it is a project output (no matter how good >>> that project may be) does make it a little risky. >>> >>> So, just for my information, what would be non-risky? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jeremy >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sent from my phone. Please excuse typos. > >
Received on Monday, 25 May 2015 19:22:29 UTC