W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > May 2018

RE: [dxwg] Revision to UC19

From: <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 14:43:12 +0000
To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EDFF15E839F79242AA55B1468C63DDA908DC8556@S-DC-ESTG02-J.net1.cec.eu.int>
Thanks, Karen. I'll check if I can find a resolution. 

The revisions in the PR were actually meant to address the issue you point out, and I would like to know what the WG think of it.

BTW, in case it could turn to be useful, some time ago I have documented some examples in the GH wiki (under the "Provenance patterns" page):




Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 - Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy


The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 4:20 PM
>To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: [dxwg] Revision to UC19
>Thanks, Andrea. But the email you respond to there (mine)[1] said:
>">My recollection, Andrea, is that most of the group did not understand in
>>any level of detail what the Use Case was requiring of DCAT. I suspect
>>that if the requirement is to require that DCAT include both unqualified
>>and qualified terms, that many will consider that out of scope."
>">I would suggest marking these two requirements as currently undecided in
>>the FPWD, and we can set aside a time in the near future to clarify this
>>with the group and decide what to do with them."
>So unless there's a resolution that I've missed (it's tedious going
>through them ...) this was something that still needs group discussion
>and decision.
>[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2017Nov/0115.html

>On 5/21/18 12:08 PM, Andrea Perego via GitHub wrote:
>> @agbeltran , my request was actually because this PR was hanging on for
>> more than 1 month with no feedback besides @dr-shorthair 's.
>> @kcoyle , just for clarity's sake, this is not a new UC, but one
>> contributed during the very first phase of the UC collection. Based on
>> my records, the UC was approved, modulo being revised as per
>> [ACTION-59](https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/59). ACTION-
>> also list the relevant emails. As I said in [this
>> email](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-

>>> [...] this use case is a generalisation of other 4 more specific use
>>> cases I contributed, covering data lineage
>>> [[1](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID12)], agent roles
>>> [[2](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID13)], data quality
>>> [[3](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID14)], and conformity
>>> [[4](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID16)]. Moreover, UC5.32
>>> [[5](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID32)], contributed by Alejandra,
>>> is also related. [...]
>> The UC has been revised as agreed, and the revision contributed on [23
>> Jan
>> 2018](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-

>> As I didn't receive any feedback, I decided to proceed with a PR to
>> trigger comments (if any).
>Karen Coyle
>kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net

>m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2018 14:43:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:03 UTC