W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ddwg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: [VOC] Document kick-off

From: Andrea Trasatti <andrea@trasatti.it>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:52:32 +0200
Message-Id: <2872C987-C12E-45C0-95D1-85AF369C106A@trasatti.it>
Cc: <public-ddwg@w3.org>, <public-uwa@w3.org>
To: "Rotan Hanrahan" <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>

Rotan,
	you are raising a few points here. I would like to have the  
explanation about the ontology and the vocabulary and most of the the  
distinction between the two things in the document. The "process"  
chapter is probably not the place, but I would like to discuss the  
proposed text change and borrow some text of this e-mail of yours for  
other portions of the document.

I suggest we discuss this in the call (so that we can reach an  
initial agreement already today) and I already volunteer for a couple  
of ACTIONS to include text in the wiki.

- Andrea

PS: I don't know if this e-mail will get to the public-uwa

Il giorno 16/apr/07, alle ore 12:07, Rotan Hanrahan ha scritto:

>
> Just one comment comes to mind at this time. I think the "EDIT"  
> stage of the process needs to be clarified, so that the vocabulary  
> and ontology are distinguished. The ontology is intended to be a  
> common framework for several vocabularies, including the DDR Core  
> Vocabulary. We have a process to update our vocabulary, and where  
> necessary, the updates are reflected in the ontology. In some cases  
> the updates may be significant, such as introducing a new data  
> type. In other cases we might extend our DDR Core Vocabulary by  
> "borrowing" from something else that was added to the ontology from  
> another source (e.g. a vocabulary under development by the OMA).
>
> The ontology ensures that all the vocabularies (including ours)  
> will interoperate, so that information associated with one  
> vocabulary can be compared/composed with information associated  
> with another vocabulary. That is not the case today because of the  
> various (and subtle) differences in the representation of device  
> information today, in the various repositories, both public and  
> private.
>
> With this in mind, I look at the comment on the process page:
>   http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/CoreVocabularyProcess
>
> It says:
>
> EDIT: what happens here is simply the creation of the entry using a  
> tool such as the Protege Ontology Editor. This will provide the  
> strong data typing that is required for this vocabulary and will  
> also provide the ease of a visual tool to produce the human- 
> unreadable, but machine-friendly RDF ontology definition of the entry.
>
> I propose this be changed to:
>
> EDIT: Using a visual tool such as the Protégé Ontology Editor,  
> together with information already in the common Ontology, a  
> representation of the proposed update is created. Duplication and  
> conflicts with existing Ontology entries are resolved at this  
> stage. The result is submitted for inclusion in the common  
> Ontology. This procedure ensures strong data typing for the  
> vocabulary, and the use of a visual tool ensures easy production of  
> RDF.
>
> This raises a question about publication. When the process has  
> produced an update that has been checked for technical things such  
> as consistency with existing Ontology entries, can the updated DDR  
> Core Vocabulary be published immediately, or does it have to wait  
> for the Ontology to be updated? Or is the Ontology going to, by  
> definition, the combination of the separate vocabularies, in which  
> case the publication of an updated DDR Core Vocabulary is  
> automatically a publication of an updated common Ontology?
>
> I like the latter idea, but I wonder how it would work in practice.  
> If this were to be the case, then the following comment in the  
> process would be removed:
>
>   "The result is submitted for inclusion in the common Ontology."
>
> because the subsequent step of publication will automatically  
> update the common Ontology.
>
> Given that the common Ontology will be placed into the stewardship  
> of the new UWA Working Group, it would be useful to know how they  
> view this issue.
>
> ---Rotan.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg- 
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Trasatti
> Sent: 16 April 2007 08:44
> To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: [VOC] Document kick-off
>
>
> Following other document stubs that have been created, I created one
> for the Core Vocabulary [1].
> I think the existing wiki-page [2] should be split in more pages and
> moved into the new structure.
>
> Also, the initial process proposal should be reviewed and moved into
> the bigger document.
>
> I look forward for feedback to the initial structure and texts and
> added.
>
> It's not a lot of text, you should be able to read it quickly.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/ 
> DeviceDescriptionCoreVocabulary
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/CoreVocabulary
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/CoreVocabularyProcess
>
> Andrea Trasatti
> Blog: http://trasatti.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 12:53:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:51 GMT