- From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:47:38 -0300
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANx1PzxTEm_a3OASqiD0gxA6Sj-nC-6x9haJO7HiBmKNzn131A@mail.gmail.com>
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