Re: Best Practice 1: Provide metadata

>I will change the text - unless you can get to it before me
Tell me what you prefer...

Laufer

2015-01-14 13:18 GMT-02:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>:

> Oh crap ... that's what comes of writing in a hurry. You are quite correct
> Laufer, sorry.
>
> In my very unconvincing defence, Void does include info about vocabs used
> and exampke SPARQL queries but that's no excuse. I will change the text -
> unless you can get to it before me. I've just landed in Greece for a 2 day
> workshop.
>
> Phil
>
>
> > Hi, Phil,
> >
> > In the text of BP1, VoID is listed as suited for the description of the
> > structure of metadata but I think VoID is more similar to DCAT, but for
> > Linked Data. It describes the dataset as a whole.
> >
> > Am I wrong?
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Laufer
> >
> > 2015-01-13 11:00 GMT-02:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>:
> >
> >> Bernadette, Newton,
> >>
> >> I've added some more BPs to the metadata section today. There's one more
> >> I
> >> really want to write ASAP which will be about providing structural
> >> metadata
> >> (what Mark Harrison called intrinsic metadata). That will include links
> >> to
> >> things like VoID for RDF datasets, the CSV work for those files etc.
> >>
> >> IMO the doc is looking better but still needs work before Friday.
> >>
> >> Personally, I don't think we should include incomplete BP templates in
> >> the
> >> FPWD. I'd rather see a list of the BPs to be inserted at that pint in
> >> the
> >> doc, so, for example in data formats just a simple list like:
> >>
> >> Provide machine-readable data
> >> Provide data in standardized formats
> >> Provide data in open formats
> >> Provide data in multiple formats
> >> Provide locale parameters
> >>
> >> (that list prompts all sorts of questions by the way - why aren't we
> >> just
> >> using the 5 star model? Shouldn't locale parameters be in the metadata
> >> section? etc.)
> >>
> >> I think that's a more honest reflection of the current situation and
> >> allows people to see which BPs have been drafted and therefore in need
> >> of
> >> review (or ridicule!).
> >>
> >> @Christophe, might you have time to add normative statements to the BPs
> >> you wrote? i.e. add in the RFC 2119 keywords in the intended outcome
> >> sections?
> >>
> >> And, wrt. Issue-115, IMHO the 'What' section can be merged with the Why
> >> -
> >> I think in all cases, unless you/others think differently??
> >>
> >> Phil.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> Phil Archer
> >> W3C Data Activity Lead
> >> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
> >>
> >> http://philarcher.org
> >> +44 (0)7887 767755
> >> @philarcher1
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > .  .  .  .. .  .
> > .        .   . ..
> > .     ..       .
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse typos.
>



-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .