Re: New DQV editor's draft

Hi,

I have already expressed my preference for the Rec option, but I prefer to cast my final vote once I have a more precise feeling about the stability/consensus level of the vocs.
Do we need to make a decision right now?

Cheers,

Antoine

On 5/26/15 5:44 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
> +1 from me too!
>
> cheers,
> Bernadette
>
> 2015-05-26 12:38 GMT-03:00 Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B44%20%280%297887%20767755>
>             @philarcher1
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 15:48:07 UTC