- From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 13:25:53 -0700
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
I agree that we don't have to make a decision now, but it is an interesting roadmap question to keep in mind as we move forward. Until this was mentioned recently (by Phil?) I know I hadn't been thinking of this possibility. Eric > On May 26, 2015, at 8:47 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > > 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 20:26:23 UTC