- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:34:22 +0100
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi everyone, We didn't really conclude on my questions today, so I'm going to write it down in an email, also to share with everyone else. During the last F2F we discussed whether DQV and DUV should introduce their elements in the DCAT namespace or their own. There was an issue, 197, raised for it [1]. The resolution then was that "DUV begins to use the DCAT namespace, DQV does not, but that both highlight this as an open issue that will lead to a common way forward in future." [2] Month after, DQV has a note about this: [ The Working Group is considering putting all new classes and properties defined in the DWBP Vocabularies in the DCAT namespace. As an attempt to stimulate reactions which might help in taking a decision, the Dataset Usage Vocabulary will be moved under the DCAT namespace. In case of positive reactions to the DUV choice, the data quality vocabulary might consider to go in the same direction. ] [3] But DUV went its own way and created its own namespace. I believe that it's not a big problem. The discussion since then, and the decision we made to publish DQV and DUV as notes (as opposed to Recommendations) comfirms that we should have our own namespaces. Still I prefer to ask everyone if: - it's ok that we remove the note about ISSUE-179 in DQV - we record a new resolution for ISSUE-179. Any objection before I do this next week? Cheers, Antoine [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/179 [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-09-25#resolution_8 [3] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#namespaces
Received on Friday, 22 January 2016 16:34:55 UTC