Re: New DQV editor's draft

Hi Phil, everyone,


On 5/22/15 3:02 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
> Thanks Antoine and all for this work. This captures the current thinking and raises issues where necessary, showing the direction of travel. That's what an FPWD is for :-)


Thanks! It's very good for us editors to have this sort of feedback :-)


>
> Against that, we're currently heading for DQV as a Note, not a Rec (unless you want to put it through Rec Track). So in that sense, the whole document is non-normative so dependencies are less critical.
> And I re-raise the possibility of putting all these new terms, and DUV, in the DCAT namespace. For me, that's the thing to do but it's a WG decision of course.


I've added it as an explicit issue in the DQV draft.

I am very eager to add our new elements to DCAT. But how would this work, in terms of formalities?
Would we as editors of DQV/DUV have to become editor of the DCAT vocabulary? Is it possible to re-open something that is a W3C Rec, to put in it content that was supposed to be one of a Note?



On a side aspect, regarding the relation with DAQ:

> However, I suggest one way forward would be to declare all relevant classes in the dqv namespace but then declare them all as owl:equivalentClass/property. How would that be?


Yes. I've added this in the issue on re-using DAQ directly or not. But to me this seems now a secondary issue...

Cheers,

Antoine

Received on Monday, 25 May 2015 20:18:19 UTC