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

Re: Data usage vocabulary continues to advance...

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:14:55 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1PzxjcZYbnCV3ReK3j2eSEOsMUygp77Be6XbbWwai9WHUKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Cc: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Hello,

Thanks a lot for the feedback! In this case, should we remove information
about domain and range from the vocabulary specification [1]?

Cheers,
Berna

[1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#vocabulary-specification

2015-12-16 13:14 GMT-03:00 Laufer <laufer@globo.com>:

>
>
> Hi, Eric,
>
> As Joao Paulo said, if we feel the necessity do define a domain/range we
> need to specify sub-properties or sub-classes. But we do not need to
> necessarily define domain/range in duv.
>
> The examples are a good way of illustrating the use of duv.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Laufer
> ---
>
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>
>
>
> Em 16/12/2015 13:46, Eric Stephan escreveu:
>
> 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>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>


-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 18:15:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 16 December 2015 18:15:45 UTC