- From: Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 17:57:58 +0200
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- CC: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABP9CAHETsavYPGi9LBoX+yB5cvgRkJmm8QOucqOsFjfLLbWNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hoi, Actually my preference would be that we first publish two drafts for the docs and after we receive the feedback look into publishing both them as a rec revision of DCAT Christophe -- Sent with difficulties. Sorry for the brievety and typos... Op 26 mei 2015 17:47 schreef "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>: > 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 15:58:25 UTC