Re: New DQV editor's draft

On 25/05/2015 21:17, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> 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 :-)

I have a flight later today when I need to read through a lot of docs. 
The Spatial data WG is also racing towards a publication next week so if 
anyone fancies joining me in reviewing a UCR with more than 40 use 
cases, be my guest!

http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html

>
>
>>
>> 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.

Thanks

>
> 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?

The namespace and the definitions are separate. A Note that said "we 
define the following new terms in the DCAT namespace" would exist in TR 
space (presumably at /TR/vocab-dqv) and we'd add the actual terms to 
/ns/dcat#. The DCAT REC remains unchanged. Likewise for DUV of course 
*if* that's what the WG decides.

On the downside, it means that definitions of terms in the DCAT 
namespace are spread across several documents. Therefore, the 
community-minded thing to do would be to create a single doc that listed 
all the terms.

Hmm... isn't that what a namespace doc is for? Shame to say, we never 
did create an HTML doc at http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat - we really should 
have done - and should still do. I would be happy to take on the task of 
creating such a page if that's the direction the WG wants to take (and I 
actually have time to do this over the summer).


>
>
>
> 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...

Ack.

Cheers

Phil.


>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 07:48:36 UTC