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 12:19:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMFz4jiV=fpDxzueW1cc-urw401h=kooLLTRxEOfV6NcfrJ2UQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Cc: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Phil,

I'd certainly prefer leaving in the tables and adding the usage note as you
described.  Berna what do you think?

Eric S

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 16/12/2015 19:25, Eric Stephan wrote:
>
>> Joao Paulo and Laufer,
>>
>> Berna and I discussed a path forward. We will remove property tables in
>> the
>> Properties section that were previously defined in other vocabularies.  In
>> the vocabulary summary section we will discuss how you external and DUV
>> classes and properties together.
>>
>> This seems to be more consistent with other vocabulary efforts.
>>
>
> Really?
> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#vocabulary-specification
>
> for example, lists all the properties used, most of which are dcterms...
>
> I think it's useful to show how you expect terms from other vocabs to be
> used. If you want to add a domain and range, then, OK, as has been said -
> define sub properties, but you can do it less formally by adding a usage
> note (vann:usageNote). That can be free text that says "when used in this
> context, ex:foo is used in this way" Again, DCAT provides examples of this.
>
> Hmmm...
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <
>> bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 20:19:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 16 December 2015 20:19:55 UTC