W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-comments@w3.org > March 2017

Re: Comments on draft charter

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:59:40 +0100
To: public-dxwg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <e5dbbfb1-78cf-4df5-583a-0b8fc6a2ae58@w3.org>
Thanks Ralph, pls see inline.

On 28/03/2017 17:13, Ralph Swick wrote:
> [Charter version as of 27-Mar commits; 6bec9c8]
> Slightly substantive:
> Mission: "Facilitate and encourage" is pretty vague.  As there's a
> deliverable on application profiles, this mission could be stronger if
> it said "Create and publish guidance on".

Actually, the WG won't create any APs but we will define them so I made 
this "Define and publish guidance on..."

> Goals, third paragraph: the second sentence suggests that the only thing
> application profiles provide are cardinality constraints and enumerated
> value sets.  Is that an intended interpretation?  If not, the sentence
> could be tweaked to not limit the scope of what could be included in the
> Guidance deliverable.

OK, I've made this "These define how a vocabulary is used, for example 
by providing cardinality constraints ..."

> Goals, fourth paragraph: who will publish the RFC?  If it is intended to
> be a work product of this WG the charter should say so.  If not, the
> sentence could be clarified accordingly.

It now says: "It is expected that a new RFC on this topic will be 
developed at IETF and published in parallel..."

> Scope: I suggest bounding the "other formats" so the WG doesn't get
> side-tracked.  At least it should be out of scope to create _new_
> formats.  Perhaps the sentence means various serializations of RDF?  I'd
> encourage that latter constraint -- other Groups are free to translate
> one of the (normative) RDF serializations into something else.

Well, I can imaging there might be calls from WG members for a JSON 
schema and/or an XML schema for DCAT so I'm reluctant to limit us to 
RDF. However, taking your point, I have amended the text to say "Methods 
for expressing DCAT in other (existing) formats are in scope..."

> Success Criteria: the question was raised in an unrelated context
> whether "use" of a term should mean simply "appears in" or "both
> published and consumed".  I encourage the latter; i.e. to exit Candidate
> Recommendation the WG should consider demonstrating that there is at
> least one instance of a publisher for each term and a consumer for that
> term.

Fair enough. I have amended the text thus: "In order to advance to 
Proposed Recommendation, the WG should show that each term in the 
revised version of DCAT is used in multiple catalogs and related 
systems. As a minimum, evidence will be adduced that each term has been 
published and consumed independently at least once, although a higher 
number is expected for the majority of terms."

> Deliverables: s/but will not delete/but MUST NOT delete/
> (uppercase optional)


> Nits:
> Status: s/undego/undergo/


> Goals: s/between/among/


> Goals, second paragraph: don't demote the parenthetical; "... DCAT lacks
> a way to describe these APIs; version 1 primarily supports the discovery
> of static datasets."


> Goals, third paragraph: the last sentence would be strengthened by
> citing some specific DCAT application profiles.

Yes, I have now added a citation of DCAT-AP (the main one) and later in 
the doc I link to further derivatives.

> Success Criteria, Coordination, Decision Policy: there are several links
> to a dated version of the Process Document; these should be to the
> "latest version", particularly as the cited version is not the current
> published version.

All dated links to the process doc made dateless.



Phil Archer
Data Strategist, W3C

+44 (0)7887 767755
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 16:59:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 28 March 2017 16:59:53 UTC