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

Re: Data usage vocabulary continues to advance...

From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 07:43:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMFz4jh3bhQFZgAYhDzP8Cx3o-ajcf9zYsA8gRtTuo-kpEGg+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>

I'm really glad you brought this point up about the domains and ranges.
What we did is in essence "redefine" domains and ranges to suit the
vocabularies needs.  I would prefer leaving off domains and ranges and show
aspects of the data usage vocabulary.  In my opinion, because we are
reusing so many vocabularies it would be more valuable looking at examples
as opposed to imposing rules that might conflict with other vocabularies
that use the same class or property.


Eric S

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:

> 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=20151217T21&p1=103
> Thanks,
> Eric, Berna, Sumit
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 15:43:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 16 December 2015 15:43:37 UTC