Re: New DQV editor's draft

Hi Phil,


> 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


Hmm, not sure I have the bandwidth - but it looks like a very nice, complete document ;-)



>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 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).
>


Yes, a namespace doc could have everything it. And you should count on all editors to help you with it!
Personally I would still find the setting strange, where a main Rec wouldn't include everything that the corresponding NS includes, and the NS would mix Rec- with Note-level elements.
But well, if this is discussed in W3C process circles and it's alright, then why not.

Note that I too should have a bit more time to help pushing something to Rec status, if the WG and/or W3C decides to do so. It would be a shame to end up with the current WG work being seen as looking slightly lame, if the only reason for this is process stuff (of course if the content is not judged Rec-level, then we'd be in a much different situation).

Cheers,

Antoine

Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 08:24:09 UTC