- From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:11:01 +0200
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, azaroth42@gmail.com
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANx1PzwJhGCFu+Lea8wQJ8Rcodv8eJ4GoQgvf+eVMMLEcko1BA@mail.gmail.com>
Dear Rob, Thanks a lot for your message and suggestions for changing the Example 30. We made the updates on the DWBP doc [1] [2] according to your comments. Please, let us know if this is ok for you. kind regards, DWBP Editors [1] https://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#FeedbackInformation [2] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/282fd57d7d4921437fc1c27231e78f9dc3810ec2 2016-07-15 12:25 GMT+02:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>: > We should take this (very minor change) into account as well, please... > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: Transition Request: CR for Data on the Web Best Practices > Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:15:54 +0200 > From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> > To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, > Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Timothy W. Cole <t-cole3@uiuc.edu>, Benjamin > Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com> > > Hi Rob, > > Given the time that it takes for me to answer mails these days, and that I > was not the one working on this section of the BP document, maybe it's > better that you send it to the comment list directly! > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > On 08/07/16 18:44, Robert Sanderson wrote: > >> >> Hi Phil, Antoine, >> (cc Web Annotation folks) >> Great to see the CR transition request go in for DWBP! Congratulations :) >> >> A very, VERY, minor note ... >> >> Thank you for using the Annotation work in Example 30, about making >> feedback possible. As you likely know, we also just hit CR this week with >> our Model and Vocabulary, and the Protocol spec will be next week after >> resolving some minor logistics issues. >> >> The slight change that would be appreciated is due to the Content in RDF >> spec never making it out of draft, and hence we had to replace it with our >> own (actually simpler) pattern. It would be lovely if Example 30 could >> instead read: >> >> ``` >> >> :comment1Content a oa:TextualBody ; >> rdf:value"This dataset is missing stop 3" . >> >> :comment1 >> a oa:Annotation ; >> oa:hasBody :comment1Content ; >> oa:hasTarget :stops-2015-05-05 ; >> dct:creator :localresident ; >> oa:motivatedBy oa:assessing . >> >> ``` >> >> And the same for the second annotation. Then delete the cnt namespace >> from the table in section 5. >> The namespace for OA doesn't change from the community group's namespace, >> nor the major predicate names. >> >> The example for this pattern in the Vocabulary (which is Turtle, the >> Model uses JSON-LD) is: >> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/#textualbody >> >> Hope that helps, and please don't consider this a formal objection for >> CR, just implementation feedback towards the next stage :) >> >> Many thanks! >> >> Rob >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org <mailto: >> phila@w3.org>> wrote: >> >> The Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group would like to >> publish its Data on the Web Best Practices as a Candidate Recommendation. >> >> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/ >> >> Resolution to Publish >> >> The primary vote was conducted by e-mail with a resolution on 8 July >> recognising the positive result. >> >> https://www.w3.org/2016/07/08-dwbp-minutes#resolution03 >> >> Proposed date of Publication >> >> 21 July >> >> Evidence that the document meets Working Group requirements >> >> The document includes a matrix [3] matching Requirements in the >> group's UCR document [4], with the relevant Best Practices. >> >> [3] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publ >> ishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#requirements >> [4] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/ >> >> Evidence that dependencies with other groups met (or not) >> >> The WG's charter [5] identifies 4 groups with which it should >> liaise. >> >> https://www.w3.org/2013/05/odbp-charter >> >> * CSV on the Web Working Group. No longer in existence, >> however, the WG did seek direct advice from some of its >> former members. For example this exchange [7] with Gregg >> Kellogg. Another member of that WG, Jeremy Tandy, is an >> editor of the Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices that >> builds on DWBP. Both he and (CSVW co-chair) Jeni Tennison >> attended the second F2F meeting of DWBP (TPAC 2014) [8] and >> gave influential advice. >> [7] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/ >> Member/member-dwbp-wg/2016Jul/0000.html >> [8] https://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-dwbp-minutes >> >> * The Internationalization Activity were also invited to the >> second F2F meeting and have been asked to review the >> document but this was too late to be included in this >> version of the document. However, we do not believe that >> the DWBP has major relevance to i18n except in one Best >> Practice [9]. >> >> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160 >> 706/#LocaleParametersMetadata >> >> * The charter cites the Privacy Interest Group as being >> relevant to another one of the DWBP WG's output, what is >> now known as the Data Quality Vocabulary. With >> hindsight, it is the Best Practices document that needs to >> take acocount of privacy concerns. WG Member Eric Stephan >> (PNNL) attended the PING's telco on 26 May [11] and >> dsicussed the DWBP work. There were no direct actions >> arising from that discussion but Eric addressed privacy >> directly in the introduction by adding: >> >> [10] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/ >> [11] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/26-privacy-minutes.html#item02 >> >> Not all data and metadata should be shared openly, however. >> Security, commercial sensitivity and, above all, >> individuals' privacy need to be taken into account. It is >> for data publishers to determine policy on which data should >> be shared and under what circumstances. Data sharing >> policies are likely to assess the exposure risk and >> determine the appropriate security measures to be taken to >> protect sensitive data, such as secure authentication and >> authorization. >> * The Data Activity Coordination Group no longer exists. >> >> Evidence that the document has received wide review >> >> Disposition of comments following 19 May 'LC' publication >> >> >> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Status_of_comments_about_t >> he_last_call_working_draft >> >> Comments before LC >> >> [13] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/w >> iki/Comments_to_be_considered_in_the_last_call_working_draft >> >> Also, note the views of of the Spatial Data on the Web WG >> whose own BP doc is being restructured (and reduced) to build >> more directly on DWBP. >> >> https://www.w3.org/2016/07/06-sdw-minutes#dwbp >> >> Earlier comments >> >> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp >> -20150224/ >> >> Evidence that issues have been formally addressed >> >> See the WG's issue tracker. All issues for the DWBP Doc are >> closed. >> >> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/ >> >> Exit criteria & Implementation evidence gathering >> >> Feedback form set up on W3C Brasil to collect >> implementation evidence. This is linked in the SotD section of >> the doc. >> >> http://w3c.br/form-dwbp/ >> >> Intention is to receive at least two independent reports that >> the test(s) for each BP have been passed. >> >> Note also the Share-PSI project that has its own small set of >> complementary BPs. These are centred around implementation of >> the European Commission's (Revised) PSI Directive. The project >> is creating or updating localised guides for implementing the >> PSI Directive that will record when they offer consistent >> advice and/or cite the BPs. It is anticipated that many of >> those guides will also refer to DWBP's work as they are >> presented as two parts of a whole. >> >> https://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/bp/ >> >> Patent Disclosures >> >> None >> >> https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/68239/exclude >> >> Charter Implications >> >> The WG will need a short extension to complete the evidence >> gathering required to exit CR. The group anticipates transition >> to PR during October 2016. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Rob Sanderson >> Semantic Architect >> The Getty Trust >> Los Angeles, CA 90049 >> > > > -- Bernadette Farias Lóscio Centro de Informática Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 12 August 2016 10:11:53 UTC