Re: New DQV editor's draft

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

+1

Eric S.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>