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

Action 227 Writing section on evolution of DUV wrt reuse of namespaces etc.

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 09:13:34 +0200
Message-ID: <5747F39E.4070602@few.vu.nl>
To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>, Bernadette Farias Lůscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, Caroline Burle <cburle@nic.br>, Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br>
CC: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Eric, BP editors, all,

We've got this action together, actually [1]
We never had the time to really progress it. And as I wrote in the last call's minutes, I donít know if Iím tempted. Prior to the last BP publication, There was a sentence on how on DUV and DQV follow the best practice for choosing the right formalization level [2], but itís been removed in the last edits because it made the text already too long and/or was judged not convincing enough. Where would the paragraph mentioned in action-227 sit? The most natural place would be the best practice on vocabulary re-use (BP15) [3]. But this one is already long.



[1] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/227
[2] the text was: "The Data Quality [[VOCAB-DQV]] and Data Usage vocabularies [[VOCAB-DUV]] created by the W3C Working Group publishing this document have also sought to minimize the number of formal axioms involved in their definition. For instance, the property dqv:hasQualityMeasurement has no formal domain in the RDFS/OWL sense, even though it is expected to be most often used with resources that are of type dcat:Dataset or dcat:Distribution. This allows application designers to employ it for other types of entities, for which quality measurements would also be relevant but that were not in the focus of the design process for DQV."
[3] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVocabularies
Received on Friday, 27 May 2016 07:14:05 UTC

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