Re: ORG: proposed Last Call draft for review


Thanks very much for moving this forward so quickly.

I'm very pleased to see the conformance section as you've written it but 
have two comments:

1. Picking up on Richard's point about the line: "it does *not* use 
terms from other vocabularies instead of ones defined in this vocabulary 
that could reasonably be used." I think that's clear but it might make 
it very slightly clearer if the word 'instead' were emphasised.


* MAY include terms from other vocabularies;

could become:

* MAY include additional terms from other vocabularies;

2. I'd really like this to become boiler plate for all vocabularies if 
possible so I wonder if specific references to ORG can be removed from 
the conformance section thus:

* may use only a subset of ORG terms.


* may use only a subset of terms defined here.

An 'ORG profile' becomes 'Application profile' or, if preferred, 
'Vocabulary profile'


On 01/10/2012 09:58, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> I've carried out the agreed changes, and a number of editorial
> improvements, to the ORG specification and believe it is now ready for
> review.
> A static version dated 2012-10-01 is at:
> Notes
> (1) I also updated the "conformance" section based on the current
> discussion between Richard and Phil, adapted for ORG rather than DCAT.
> I've used the term "data interchange" to represent the thing that
> conforms - meaning this to cover publication (by file, SPARQL or
> embedded) and exchange protocols.
> (2) ORG has a couple of references to the OPMV vocabulary. I considered
> whether these should be changed to use PROV-O [1]. Technically that
> would be easy, for those parts used in ORG then PROV-O is basically the
> same as OPMV except for names. However, PROV-O is still at WD stage so
> if we made that a dependency we would be blocked waiting for PROV-O to
> proceed.  When PROV-O is published it seems likely that someone will
> provide mappings between it and OPMV, in which case our use of OPMV
> would automatically be compatible with PROV-O.
> (3) I've left the document status as Editor's draft, I assume that's
> right until we've reviewed and voted.
> Dave
> [1]


Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment
+44 (0)7887 767755

Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 16:32:48 UTC