Re: Comments on ORG ED

Hi Ghislain,

On 03/10/12 15:59, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:
> Hi all,
> Thanks Richard for this GREAT review. While reading some of the points,
> I suggest to use some of your guidelines in the BP document.
>> 18. "Note on style": Rename to something like "Note on modelling
>> style"; the current title suggests it's about typographic conventions
>> in the document
> This section could be moved to the BP Doc, with a pointer to the ORG
> document?!

I wouldn't recommend it :)

This choice of style (inverse properties and noun-phrase names for 
relations) worked for the early users of ORG but was the source of 
significant feedback on the wider lists (positive and negative). Doesn't 
count as "best" practice, it is just "one" good practice that seemed 
appropriate in this case.

Putting the style comment in ORG originally was intended to forestall 
more comments about such conventions by flagging that they were 
deliberate and motivated choices, even though they are not the only 
possible ones. Trying to recommend this style as best practice for 
everyone is likely to cause more pain than benefit!

> Also I found two small typos:
>   - In the abstract section, "organzations" instead of *organizations*
>   - The property "org:originalOrganzation" instead of
> *org:originalOrganization* in section #11.1.2.

Thanks, fixed in source.

> In the section "Example", it is said: "This example provides a quick
> overview of how dcat might be used to an organization". Is it *dcat* ?
> or there will be a link also to the dcat vocab?

I don't that is present in the proposed draft:

Might need to hit refresh on your browser?

If was a left over from Daniel's first import of ORG where I think he 
may have started from the dcat document as a template.


Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 15:15:37 UTC