Re: Changing BPs in data vocabulary section

Hi Antoine,

Instead of updating the BP I created some issues, which are also included
in the document.

https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/209
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/210
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/211
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/212

These issues come from the discussions that we had during the F2F4.

Cheers,
Bernadette

2015-11-09 16:27 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

> Hi Bernadette,
>
> OK, it makes sense. I just thought that you wanted examples as soon as
> possible. Now I'm going to wait...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> On 11/9/15 12:37 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
>
>> 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 <mailto:
>> 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
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>


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

Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2015 22:48:28 UTC