- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 18:03:52 +0100
- To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
My motivation is to state what the outcome should be, not to restate the Why and Possible Implementation of the BP. Let me try and see if there's a mid way point for this one: Intended Outcome ================ To make datasets and metadata easier to be compared by humans or machines. To make it easier for (automatic) processing tools designed for one dataset to be applied to another, thereby greatly facilitating the reuse of data. To improve interoperability among data producers and consumers by using codes and terms from standardized vocabularies. So grammatically, the subject of all three sentences is the intended outcome. WDYT? Phil. On 27/04/2016 17:50, Annette Greiner wrote: > Personally, I like the fuller version that Antoine wrote. Is there consensus on how these should be written? I prefer seeing full sentences with actual subjects, but I know at least Phil prefers the verb phrase form. We need to be consistent. > -Annette > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Apr 27, 2016, at 6:44 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: >> >> Hi Phil, >> >> Thanks for the feedback! >> I'm more than ok with your changes (thanks for this too!) expect maybe in the intended outcome. It was: >> [ >> Using the same vocabulary to describe metadata will make datasets and metadata easier to be compared by humans or machines. When two datasets or metadata sets use the same vocabulary, (automatic) processing tools designed for one can be more easily applied to the other. This greatly facilitates re-use of datasets. Using codes and terms from standardized vocabularies enhances consensus among data publishers and consumers. >> ] >> It is now: >> [ >> To make it easier to compare and integrate datasets; to create the network effect. >> ]. >> This is more elegant but may miss the naming of specific aspects that I had been asked to add in the text. This said, I personally don't care much. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Antoine >> >>> On 27/04/16 13:09, Phil Archer wrote: >>> I have just been through that merged BP, which I think is now clear. However, the advertising copy writer in me couldn't help wanting to make a few minor tweaks to the language. My version is at >>> https://philarcher1.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ReuseVocabularies >>> >>> I created a PR for it - at editors' discretion. >>> >>> Phil. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 27/04/2016 11:01, Antoine Isaac wrote: >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> The two best practices are now merged, as per the PR >>>> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/365 >>>> I've been rather conservative in my approach. Most of the content that >>>> was in the two original BPs remain, even the examples. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Antoine >>>> >>>> On 07/04/16 15:11, Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue >>>> Tracker wrote: >>>>> dwbp-ISSUE-253: Use standardized terms x Reuse vocabularies [Best >>>>> practices document(s)] >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/253 >>>>> >>>>> Raised by: Bernadette Farias Loscio >>>>> On product: Best practices document(s) >>>>> >>>>> There was some discussion about these BP on our mailing list [1][2]. >>>>> Is it necessary to rewrite these best practices? Are they confusing? >>>>> or we can keep these BPs the way they are right now. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Mar/0014.html >>>>> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Apr/0007.html >> > > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 17:04:04 UTC