W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Reviewing open DCAT actions; action required from Bernadette, Phil, John, Sandro

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:53:00 +0000
Message-ID: <512F28FC.9000702@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-gld-wg@w3.org
At last... more responses

On 05/02/2013 21:21, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Great, that's action number one. What about the other three? :-)


>>> You had ACTION-73 to write up the outcome of a discussion with Rufus from OKFN.
>>> https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/actions/73
>>> I believe you can claim victory on that one; the link to your summary is on the action page.

Indeed, action closed. Sorry it took so long after actually taking the 
action to close it ;-(

>>> You had ACTION-83 to clarify about dc:language:
>>> https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/actions/83
>>> You did that, and we had a long and productive discussion as a result, which culminated in a proposal that seemed to have consensus, and which Fadi will get on the DCAT agenda for voting shortly. So, claim victory on the action?

Absolutely. The discussion has been fruitful. LoC URIs it is. Action closed,

>>> Finally, in non-DCAT business, you had ACTION-94 to ask me about ISSUE-46:
>>> https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/actions/94
>>> The answer is that I'm satisfied with the changes made to RegOrg in that regard, but I believe that the same question applies to ADMS and hasn't been answered or discussed in that context. I realise that doing these changes on ADMS would be a lot of work. I propose changing ISSUE-46 so that it applies only to the ADMS product.

For RegOrg we simply changed the diagram so that it showed the RDF 
namespaces. I've been doing the same with another vocab I'm working on 
under the ISA Programme - i.e. not trying to create another layer of 
abstraction. It has reduced the problem of confusion no end. So much so 
that in a doc I've written for the ISA Prog on how to create an RDF 
schema from a UML diagram I've specifically advised people not to create 
a separate conceptual model diagram and the derive an RDF model. This, I 
hope, will meet with your approval :-)

For ADMS, my current plan is to create a draft WG Note, complete with 
RDF-only diagram. I have to talk about ADMS in a workshop on 13 March so 
I need to have something to say about it by then - hence it is rising up 
my priority list, even though my current schedule is preventing me from 
attending GLD meetings.

Thanks for pulling all this together Richard.



Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment

+44 (0)7887 767755
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 09:53:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:52:05 UTC