Re: Changing BPs in data vocabulary section

Hi Antoine,

I am still working on this section that's why I still didn't send a message
to the group explaining and justifying the updates. When it's finished I'm
gonna send a message explaining the updates and asking feedback. I can tell
you that some changes were made based on discussions that we had during the
F2F. However, this is not the "final version" that you should review.

Cheers,
Bernadette



2015-11-08 17:52 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

> Hi Bernadette, Caroline, Newton,
>
> I our last call, we agreed that Bernadette could make editorial changes to
> fix the wording of the "Intended Outcome" part of the best practices in the
> section on data vocabularies.
>
> I'm a bit puzzled by the fact that some of the latest changes clearly bit
> beyond. For example the order of BPs has been changed. I'm ready to reckon
> the editors should feel free to change if they think there's a reason, but
> this change has left me wondering, what was the intention behind ;-)
>
> There are also changes that are not really editorial. For example a
> generalization from "terms for describing metadata" to "terms for data
> values" (which I think I agree with, btw). Even more drastic, BP titles
> have been re-written: "Re-use vocabularies" became "Use shared
> vocabularies" and "Use standardized terms" is now "Use code lists".
> The former change is quite minor, even though I liked that the previous
> version had "reuse" in the first position (it's always better to re-use a
> vocabulary than to do nothing; even if the vocabulary is not shared across
> a very wide community). The latter change is more drastic. I miss
> "standardized" at the front the BP. As far as I can remember (I didn't
> create that BP) this was the key point. It was not about using code lists
> for the sake of using code lists: code lists could be idiosyncratic too.
> And some 'lists' targeted by this BP are not codes, they come as
> natural-language terms/labels.
>
>
> Are these change reflecting some previous discussion in the group? I've
> missed some parts of the F2F on BPs, so I can't tell.
> Also, are there further such non-editorial changes to happen?
> I'm still ok providing examples, but if the BP are to be changed in a way
> that alter their meaning, then I will wait...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/compare/761d8eee02...c9fe02c406
>
>


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