Re: DAQ and DQV

Hi Antoine,

Re-declaring with references to daQ makes more sense for us. Please keep us in the loop when adding formal semantics to daQ. We will also continue to support daQ (mainly) and DQV.

Cheers,
Jeremy

On 14 Aug 2015, at 14:38, Isaac, A.H.J.C.A. <aisaac@few.vu.nl<mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:

Dear Christoph, Jeremy,

It's funny that Christoph just replied to my general call for comments on DQV, because I just was about to send you an email about a specific issue we have... This time about the relation between DQV and DAQ.

As Jeremy knows well (he's a official contributor to DQV) there is overlap between both vocabularies.
And one of the questions is whether we should just include classes of DAQ into DQV, or 're-declare' them in the new DQV namespace at W3C:
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/180

The first problem we have is that doing so would require that the re-used classes and properties have exactly the same meaning, which could require some tuning on both side.

Perhaps more importantly, directly re-using classes and properties in the DAQ namespace would require that your university servers keep to publish DAQ on the very long term, and with very good uptime, for possibly a large amount of requests. Usually this is the kind of commitment universities are reluctant to make, especially for after the researchers who have produced the data go work elsewhere.

What do you think?

Of course if we go for 're-declaring', we'd keep making appropriate references to DAQ in the DQV references, and add formal equivalence/subclass/subproperty mappings to DAQ in the RDF version of the vocabulary (which wouldn't require as strong a commitment from DAQ).

Best regards,
Antoine