W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > December 2015

Re: Data usage vocabulary continues to advance...

From: Joćo Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:42:45 -0200
To: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
CC: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D2971A86.B3B6A%jpalmeida@ieee.org>
I agree with Laufer about domain-range definitions. If we feel the need to
constrain domain and range beyond what is defined in existing vocabularies,
then we need to specify sub-properties.

Regards,
Joćo Paulo


From:  Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Date:  Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 1:34 PM
To:  Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Cc:  Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Joćo Paulo Almeida
<jpalmeida@ieee.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Data usage vocabulary continues to advance...

 

Hi, Eric, Berna, Sumit,
 
Thank you for the updates.
 
I have a comment about Domain/Range definitions. I think that properties
that are reused from other vocabularies (for example, dct:title) should not
have Domain/Range definitions in duv.
 
I still really prefer the "Examples" section after the "Vocabulary Overview"
section, maybe after the "Vocabulary Specification" section, as in dqv
document.
 
Cheers,
Laufer
 
--

.  .  .  .. .  . 
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .

 

Em 16/12/2015 11:34, Eric Stephan escreveu:
> 
> The data usage vocabulary editors are still working on a new revision of the
> document http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html.  In anticipation of a
> possible vote this week I wanted those who have interest or commented last
> week to see where our document was headed.
>  
> All - Major changes were made reusing existing classes and properties from
> other vocabularies.  Domains and ranges were added to compliment our model.
>  
> This revision includes digging deeper into the SPAR ontologies
> http://www.sparontologies.net/.  At this point I really feel we need to show
> our work to the citations communities, perhaps they will direct us to reuse
> other terms that we are currently using.
>  
> Laufer and Phil - We are still working on the overview, there are a few
> properties that need to be added to the specification, and the vocabulary
> needs updating.  That being said, we added significant detail to the model
> picture adding all the properties as requested.
>  
> Joao Paulo - We have hopefully addressed most of your concerns about reuse.
> We reworked the citation model, and included the a class fabio ontology from
> SPAR based on examples  http://www.sparontologies.net/ontologies/fabio .  We
> considered DataCitationAct and looking at CITO CitationAct we felt it
> satisfied the DUV needs without extending.  We did find notes about tying
> oa:Annotation and oa:Motivation to help explain the motivation of a citation
> act.   Based on Phil's recommendations we used the Organization ontology as a
> example for refining how we want to describe Agents and Usage.
>  
> Other than the outstanding work I mentioned in this note, as you examine the
> current document if you are aware of any showstoppers please let us know by
> Thursday 9pm Honolulu Hawaii time.
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DUV+Comments&iso=2015
> 1217T21&p1=103 
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Eric, Berna, Sumit
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 15:43:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 16 December 2015 15:43:31 UTC