W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > May 2016

Last partially resolved comment DWBP

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 15:17:17 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1PzzAiW1Guc+1mA++SX_sBMRQRXVKNbG5KgwbHYHSVdKR2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Hi Annette,

I'd like to discuss with you the following comment about "Persistent URIs
within datasets".

"Much of the implementation section is about minting new URIs, which is the
subject of the previous BP. It is off topic here. Everything from "If you
can't find an existing set of identifiers that meet your needs, you'll need
to create your own" down to the end of the example doesn't belong in a BP
that is about using other people's identifiers. "

We discussed this comment with Phil and he explained that the main idea of
the BP is the use of Persistent URIs rather than the reuse of URI. This is
the reason for explaining how to create persistent URIs in the
implementation section. I agree that there is some intersection with the "Best
Practice 10: Use persistent URIs as identifiers of datasets", but BP11 is
about identifiers within datasets.

Given this, I'd like to ask you if you agree with keeping the
Implementation section of Best Practice 11: Use persistent URIs as
identifiers within datasets the way that it is now or do

Thanks a lot!

Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 18:18:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:52 UTC