- From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 21:52:22 +0000
- To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- CC: "L.Svensson@dnb.de" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>, "phila@w3.org" <phila@w3.org>, "Tandy, Jeremy" <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>, "portele@interactive-instruments.de" <portele@interactive-instruments.de>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Linda, I agree - a good compromise. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Linda van den Brink [mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl] > Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 1:02 PM > To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org > Cc: Little, Chris; L.Svensson@dnb.de; phila@w3.org; Tandy, Jeremy; > portele@interactive-instruments.de; Simon.Cox@csiro.au > Subject: RE: SDW BP Glossary Meta-issue > > Hi all, > > Jeremy and I decided to remove the CSIRO register links for now, since > they can't be trusted to be stable (see Simons explanation below). > > Also, we decided not to add a link to the TC211's Excel file because > this is a proprietary format. For now, all we have are the formal ISO > document references. > > The relevant PR is here: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/865 > > However, we consider this an editorial change and could put the links > back in once a more stable service becomes available. This could be > done in the final version created by this WG or even afterwards. After > all, the BP is a Note and can be amended. > > Linda > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au] > Verzonden: maandag 8 mei 2017 02:47 > Aan: portele@interactive-instruments.de; Linda van den Brink > CC: chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk; L.Svensson@dnb.de; phila@w3.org; > jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk; public-sdw-wg@w3.org > Onderwerp: RE: SDW BP Glossary Meta-issue > > Right. The CSIRO register is definitely a sandbox. It was just a one- > time dump of the ISO terminology register, which I threw together to > illustrate a potential publication pathway for ISO. Andrew Jones has > continued to work on it in the background, but I fear that ISO will not > publish it on any useful timeframe. > > CSIRO can probably transition these to a more stable service on the > timeframe of final publication (e.g. Research Vocabularies Australia, > hosted at ANDS), but not within the next week or two. > > Simon > > -----Original Message----- > From: Clemens Portele [mailto:portele@interactive-instruments.de] > Sent: Saturday, 6 May, 2017 20:02 > To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> > Cc: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>; Svensson, Lars > <L.Svensson@dnb.de>; Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>; Tandy, Jeremy > <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org; Cox, Simon (L&W, > Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> > Subject: Re: SDW BP Glossary Meta-issue > > I agree. In particular as the content should be the same in both the > excel and the CSIRO registry. > > However, one concern about the links to the entries in the CSIRO > registry: These point to the "Sandbox register for testing" in the > registry which is marked as "experimental", which to me indicates that > it will not be persistent. > > Clemens > > > On 6. May 2017, at 09:02, Linda van den Brink > <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> wrote: > > > > I'd prefer not to link to an Excel spreadsheet... > > > > What do others think?? > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: Little, Chris [mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk] > > Verzonden: vrijdag 5 mei 2017 18:23 > > Aan: Linda van den Brink; Svensson, Lars; Phil Archer > > CC: public-sdw-wg@w3.org; Tandy, Jeremy; Simon.Cox@csiro.au > > Onderwerp: RE: SDW BP Glossary Meta-issue > > > > Hi Linda, > > > > I'm happy to keep those links. The CSIRO site is webbier and direct > to the definition, even if not the authoritative owner. > > > > Let us keep both the CSIRO and TC211 Spreadsheet links - in some of > my emails I gave a more comprehensive link text. > > > > Chris > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Linda van den Brink [mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl] > >> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 10:44 AM > >> To: Linda van den Brink; Little, Chris; Svensson, Lars; Phil Archer > >> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org; Tandy, Jeremy; Simon.Cox@csiro.au > >> Subject: RE: SDW BP Glossary Meta-issue > >> > >> Also, I kept the references to the TC211 glossary hosted at CSIRO. > If > >> this is not appropriate please let me know so I can remove these, or > >> provide a PR doing so. > >> > >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > >> Van: Linda van den Brink [mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl] > >> Verzonden: vrijdag 5 mei 2017 10:51 > >> Aan: Little, Chris; Svensson, Lars; Phil Archer > >> CC: public-sdw-wg@w3.org; Tandy, Jeremy; Simon.Cox@csiro.au > >> Onderwerp: RE: SDW BP Glossary Meta-issue > >> > >> For now, I will link to the persistent URI of the current version of > >> Wikipedia articles, to be on the safe side. > >> > >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > >> Van: Little, Chris [mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk] > >> Verzonden: donderdag 4 mei 2017 18:45 > >> Aan: Svensson, Lars; Phil Archer > >> CC: public-sdw-wg@w3.org; Linda van den Brink; Tandy, Jeremy; > >> Simon.Cox@csiro.au > >> Onderwerp: RE: SDW BP Glossary Meta-issue > >> > >> 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 Monday, 8 May 2017 21:53:00 UTC