- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 19:03:36 +0100
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Dear all, I've updated the DWBP Best Practice 16 "Use Standardized terms": http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MetadataStandardized [3] I've done some editorial clean up and re-organization of some points there. But most importantly I've added examples following the comments received from the SDW WG [1] on a previous version of the BP [2]. @DWBP friends: can you have a general check at this? @SDW: I hope the enhancement alleviate your worried. Thanks again for the suggestion! I have a couple of questions though: 1. I hope I captured enough provenance/credentials for the examples I used that were contributed in our discussion with SDW. The two reference vocabularies that I was pointed to are the result of various projects hosted by different institutions, it's not easy to find back the proper responsibilities. Please suggest amendments if I've misrepresented the context of a linked data publication! 2. A more specific question for these who suggested the GeoLink Schema. I've used an example with dct:type and then the URI http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L05/current/357/ which seems to be actually the reference one for the link you gave in the call [4] I've used dct:type because in the RDF I got for this URI, the type was skos:Concept (which seems actually very right). But when I look to the HTML doc I've been given in the call we attended, then I see the same URI is also defined as class: http://schema.geolink.org/1.0/voc/nvs/L05.html#d4e3226 Should I change my example? Thanks a lot for the help, Antoine [1] https://www.w3.org/2016/02/17-sdw-minutes [2] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/08e1293039a7def3fe5f1dea38180f6e44db139f/bp.html [3] @Editors, sorry for my merging my pull request myself: I had to get this public to send this mail! [4] http://schema.geolink.org/1.0/voc/nvs/L05.html#d4e575
Received on Sunday, 28 February 2016 18:04:11 UTC