Re: Post-mortem comment on ISSUE-179 - using DCAT namespace or not

To establish a bit of a timeline, last October there was a very small
contingency of folks including Antoine and myself on the October 16 WG
call.  I don't believe it was a formal meeting that day and there wasn't a
vote, but here [1] is the last discussion we had about not using DCAT as a
namespace, from what I can tell.


Thanks,

Eric S

Reference
[1]  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Oct/0035.html

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> Thanks Antoine,
>
> My understanding is that the WG resolved not to use the DCAT namespace for
> either vocabulary. I'd have difficulty finding the resolution itself but
> that is my clear memory. The rationale being that people didn't like having
> terms in a single namespace being defined in multiple documents.
>
> If others have a different recollection, then of course I am ready to be
> corrected.
>
> Phil.
>
>
> On 22/01/2016 16:34, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>
>