Re: Suggested topics for upcoming Vocabulary Meeting

Hi all,

Regarding #1, I agree with Eric that it is important to have a conceptual
model to describe the vocabularies, i.e., it is important to have a higher
level description that is independent of implementation details. I also
agree with Antoine that our results should be easier to explain/understand
than PROV.

Regarding #2, for beginners like me, I suggest to take a look at  [1] :)

kind regards,
Bernadette

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/Editors/




2014-07-09 11:09 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>:

> Antoine,
>
> Regarding #1, I wasn't suggesting we write an entire stack of
> documentation similar to PROV :-) ,  PROV is extensive because it was
> designed to support any community whether they on the web or
> otherwise.  PROV has been mentioned on at least several occasions
> since the the F2F1 as something that DWBP can leverage.   If PROV is
> leveraged is the PROV-DM conceptual model leveraged or the specific
> PROV-O (PROV Ontology) implementation?    I think we just need to be
> specific.  Also if we are writing RDF vocabularies what steps do we
> take to make sure we are serving the entire DWBP audience and not just
> the linked data community are being served?   I don't think this is
> something the vocabulary teams can decide themselves, its something
> that needs to be considered at the working group level.
>
> #2  sounds good.
>
> Eric
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On #1 I don't think we need a specific data model document. Prov is
> really
> > complex, I guess that's why they opted for describing the model in
> > isolation, and then tried to justified all their choices in the various
> > implementations. Hopefully our choices will be easier to
> explain/understand.
> > Note that with our audience (many people who don't master the concepts of
> > linked data, or are even still wondering, what data they should publish,
> if
> > I get it right) I'd say that if we come to something that would need the
> > structure of the PROV documentation, then we've failed.
> >
> > On #2 yes this is relevant, but well usually it's done at a later stage.
> And
> > if we use the right tools in the process (reSpec) then it should be
> > relatively alright.
> >
> > In any case if you are now considering these questions, it makes sense to
> > discuss them further.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Antoine
> >
> >
> > On 7/7/14 2:59 PM, Eric Stephan wrote:
> >>
> >> Here are two suggested items for our upcoming vocabulary meeting this
> >> week:
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) Vocabulary development methodology - Are vocabularies being defined
> >> going to need separate concept model working drafts?   Because we are
> >> supporting data on the web this seems appropriate.  The W3C PROV
> >> Working Group produced a family of documents [1] to support the
> >> provenance vocabulary.     Prior to writing specific vocabulary
> >> implementation working drafts an underlying conceptual model called
> >> the PROV Data Model working draft [2] was developed.  As PROV
> >> implementation working drafts [3,4,5] were developed any changes that
> >> affected the underlying PROV Data Model were coordinated so that
> >> synchronization was maintained with the underlying conceptual model.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2) Publication policies and standards [6,7]  After some digging I
> >> found some resources for publishing technical documents.  Perhaps we
> >> could get some guidance on the best path forward for developing our
> >> working drafts and making sure they are consistent.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> References
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-overview-20130430/
> >>
> >> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-dm-20130430/
> >>
> >> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/
> >>
> >> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-xml-20130430/
> >>
> >> [5] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2013/SUBM-prov-json-20130424/ (this
> >> was only a submission)
> >>
> >> [6] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-pubrules-about#submission
> >>
> >> [7] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------