- From: Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:10:28 -0300
- To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Dear Eric, thank you for sending it. Kind regards, BP Editors On 22/07/16 07:13, Eric Stephan wrote: > Dwbp editors, > > It is an interesting observation. Originally the use of cnt for text came as a recommendation from the SPAR ontologies team. This will mean a slight change to the DUV as well. I think is good to pass along to the SPAR team as well. > > Eric S > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/Content-in-RDF10/ > > > Sent from a Pokemon tracking device. > >> On Jul 15, 2016, at 3:25 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: >> >> 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/publishing-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-20160706/#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_the_last_call_working_draft >>> >>> Comments before LC >>> >>> [13] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/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 >>
Received on Friday, 22 July 2016 17:11:07 UTC