Re: New DQV editor's draft

If the WG has the capacity to take DQV and DUV through Rec track, then, 
of course, it can (formally, I believe that the chairs and I would have 
to make the case to the Director and possibly the members but I woudn't 
expect that to be a problem). It means gathering evidence that the terms 
are useful in the real world - which should be doable of course, it's a 
question of time and resources.

But of course, an REC for DCAT 1.1 would be seen by many as a good thing.

As ever... it's up the WG ;-)

Phil.

On 26/05/2015 09:23, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> 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
>

-- 


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 11:28:59 UTC