W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > May 2017

RE: SDW BP Glossary Meta-issue

From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 16:44:48 +0000
To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
CC: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, "Tandy, Jeremy" <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Message-ID: <3DAD8A5A545D7644A066C4F2E82072883E2CA624@EXXCMPD1DAG4.cmpd1.metoffice.gov.uk>
Lars,

Thank you for a good point. 

Maybe we should be guided by the W3C policy? If they have one.

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Svensson, Lars [mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de]
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 5:16 PM
> To: Little, Chris
> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org; Linda van den Brink; Tandy, Jeremy;
> Simon.Cox@csiro.au
> Subject: RE: SDW BP Glossary Meta-issue
> 
> Hello Chris, all,
> 
> On Thursday, May 04, 2017 4:55 PM, Little, Chris
> [mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk] wrote:
> 
> > As I work through the highlighted issues in the Glossary, I have been
> > using a limited number of online resources:
> >
> > 1. Wikipedia articles. These have reasonably persistent URLs to human
> readable pages.
> 
> A meta-meta-issue: Do we cite the Wikipedia article using the "general"
> URL (e. g. [1]) or do we cite a specific version of the article (e. g.
> [2])? The latter is generally considered the better practice since the
> article contents might change and the cited text might not be contained
> any more (although that is probably not the case for this kind of
> information).
> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geohash

> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geohash&oldid=773640793

> 
> Best,
> 
> Lars

Received on Thursday, 4 May 2017 16:45:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 4 May 2017 16:45:26 UTC