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 07:46:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMFz4jjZdxQGSZ+e2+oy5cb_H+BRdgcLxZS=Pi21vWQBD7ZUyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>
Cc: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Joao Paulo,

I felt like the DUV got into "trouble" :-) somewhat when we attempted
defining subproperties to refine how we wanted to use a property based on
an existing property.

What do you think of Laufer's idea that instead of attempting to manage
domains and ranges that we illustrate using the classes and properties?

Thanks so much,

Eric S.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:42 AM, João Paulo Almeida <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,
> João 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>, João 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=20151217T21&p1=103
> Thanks,
> Eric, Berna, Sumit
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 15:47:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 16 December 2015 15:47:21 UTC