- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:39:11 +0200
- To: david.browning@thomsonreuters.com, rob@metalinkage.com.au, public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Thank you, Dave. This is a good solution. For anyone with ideas about this, please look at the F2F4 document [1] where there is a place to log any ideas (they don't have to be well-formed!) of things we could conceivable cover during those two days. kc [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/F2f4 On 9/26/18 10:07 AM, david.browning@thomsonreuters.com wrote: > I plan to make sure that all comments on the WD are either addressed > before publication or logged in issues. > > > > Certainly the text here risks confusing the reader so I’d want to fix > that before publication, leaving open the topic of whether the DCAT spec > should provide anything about DCAT profiles specifically (for example > as in Issue #114 talking about a DCAT 2014 profile). We can talk about > that and any other specifically DCAT/profile stuff at F2F4 > > > > · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · > · · · > *David Browning* > Platform Technology Architect > > *Thomson Reuters* > > Phone: +41(058) 3065054 > Mobile: +41(079) 8126123 > > david.browning@thomsonreuters.com <mailto:david.browning@thomsonreuters.com> > thomsonreuters.com <http://thomsonreuters.com/> > > > > > > *From:*Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au] > *Sent:* 25 September 2018 22:56 > *To:* Karen Coyle > *Cc:* Dataset Exchange Working Group > *Subject:* Re: Relationship of DCAT revision and profiles > > > > this should be put in into the issue? (anyway +1) > > > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 00:31, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net > <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: > > I apologize that I missed this in my earlier review of the document. The > DCAT draft says: > > "Issue 72 > > DCAT provides a generic metadata vocabulary for cataloguing datasets. > Profiles of DCAT are required for specific applications and disciplines. > Providing a model and formalization for DCAT profiles is planned to be > an important part of this revision. Also see Issue #73, Issue #74, Issue > #75."[1] > > Two things about this: > > 1) The issues cited here have been generally considered to be relevant > to the profile guidance document, not the DCAT revision. Issue 72 has > the label DCAT but that issue does not seem to have been revisited much > since it was created. Issue #75 has been closed. > > 2) I believe that we determined, with the help of Phil Archer, who > authored the charter, that the profiles guidance is not intended to be > guidance for DCAT profiles but for profiles in general, so a promise of > a "formalization for DCAT profiles" isn't what we'll deliver. > > Therefore, it would seem that this section (12 in the current document) > should point to the (future) profile guidance document and not state > that "formalization for DCAT profiles is planned". There may be other > useful things to say her about DCAT and profiles; we can add that to the > agenda for the F2F where we intend to review (and solidify) the > relationships between the deliverables. > > [1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#profiles > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__w3c.github.io_dxwg_dcat_-23profiles&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=SX6sxEGBIuiEtjQTAWz7jTpuOC0f5DcH79errOWxM8RN6gOsHdAxWfl9GTTkalJj&m=iR9dKIPz6ijO96t6ZIEWNitPeE6nfMBKaONPfAGeSpw&s=_xK6vFCoQOXBhvDwGaRZIrLNW7tJmaQqLZHgUz-63zs&e=> > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__kcoyle.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=SX6sxEGBIuiEtjQTAWz7jTpuOC0f5DcH79errOWxM8RN6gOsHdAxWfl9GTTkalJj&m=iR9dKIPz6ijO96t6ZIEWNitPeE6nfMBKaONPfAGeSpw&s=DMGbC9_bjiee46Af6SVdO0q1eizl1vh2Xk4x-hAje0E&e=> > m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal) > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal) skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2018 14:39:40 UTC