W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > November 2014

RE: Is use of Data Cube Vocabulary for an observation-less catalog considered harmful?

From: Ed Staub <ed.staub@semanterra.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:11:55 -0500
To: 'Christophe Guéret' <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
Cc: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, 'Albert Meroño Peñuela' <albert.merono@dans.knaw.nl>
Message-ID: <004301d0002e$185e4030$491ac090$@staub@semanterra.org>
> Do I understand correctly that you would like to create DSDs with no observations attached to them ?

Yes, that's right.

> ... but I don't see why you need to extend the vocabulary ...

The ways in which I'm extending it seemed irrelevant to my question, so I didn't get into it.  FWIW, I'm exploring whether cataloging with deep semantics that describe the real-world relationships between the measures and dimensions can lead to better means for search and mashup.

> nothing preventing you from doing that... 

Yes, I know the Ontology Police won't come get me ;-) - I'm just concerned about mucking up the ecosystem, creating usage ambiguity where there was none before, simply because no one had considered this usage before.  

-Ed

> From: Christophe Guéret [mailto:christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl] 
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 6:37 AM
> To: Ed Staub
> Cc: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org; dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com; Albert Meroño Peñuela
> Subject: Re: Is use of Data Cube Vocabulary for an observation-less catalog considered harmful?
> 
> Hi Ed,
> Do I understand correctly that you would like to create DSDs with no observations attached to them ?
> It seems to me there is nothing preventing you from doing that but I don't see why you need to extend the vocabulary if the goal is to list existing DSD...
> I've added Albert in cc to this thread as he is currently implementing something similar. He'll be able to tell more about it and discuss where your approach and his differ.
> Regards,
> Christophe
> 
> 
> > On 13 November 2014 05:11, Ed Staub <ed.staub@semanterra.org> wrote:
> > I am working on an ontology for public cataloging of data cubes that could
> > be an extension of the RDF Data Cube Vocabulary, where dimensions and
> > measures are provided, but no observations.  If successful, there could be a
> > lot of public instances of this around.
> > 
> > While AFAICT it is technically valid to extend the Data Cube Vocabulary in
> > this way, it seems like it may be in conflict with the intended use of the
> > vocabulary, and might lead to undesired behavior by tools that implicitly
> > expect instantiations of the Data Cube vocabulary to not be "empty suits" -
> > to contain the data that they describe.
> > 
> > Is this observation-less usage of the Data Cube Vocabulary for cataloging
> > advisable?
> > 
>
Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 17:12:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:24:18 UTC