Re: Missing provenance metadata on DQV Observations

Hi Jeremy,

OK we shall add a note then. I'm going to add this to our editorial actions...

Cheers,

Antoine

On 14/06/16 09:59, Debattista, Jeremy wrote:
> Hi Riccardo,
>
>> Said that,  your comment reveals that this design choice  can  be misunderstood,  Do you think  we should add a note or a sentence to  make our point clearer?
>
> Yes I think a note would make this clearer :)
>
>
>> Collecting  the DQV implementations  is a good idea, but I am not sure we should list them  in the  DQV Document.  Very soon,   we are supposed  to have the final DQV vote,  and after the last vote, we are not allowed to update the document anymore.
>> Then the risk is to leave out  many of the implementations that are still in progress.
>>
>> What do you think about  having the implementations collected in a   the w3c DWBP wiki page?  A wiki page   can be easily maintained  after the vote and  I guess we are allowed to refer to such a  page from the DQV document.
>
> Perfect, we can start with the wiki page and maybe make a link in the DQV page pointing to it.
>
> Cheers,
> Jer
>

Received on Friday, 17 June 2016 07:14:30 UTC