Re: New DQV editor's draft

+1 from me too!

cheers,
Bernadette

2015-05-26 12:38 GMT-03:00 Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl
>:

> A warm +1 from me too.
>
> Christophe
>
> --
> Sent with difficulties. Sorry for the brievety and typos...
> Op 26 mei 2015 13:48 schreef "Eric Stephan" <ericphb@gmail.com>:
>
> >> 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
>>>
>>>
>>


-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------