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 17:22:19 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1PzzZ3qcu_VXCCC-g7t6rM8t66cr8-Tm29SLtrQy9c=j2Ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Eric,

I also like this idea! Let's keep the tables and add the notes.

Thanks!
Berna

2015-12-16 17:19 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>:

> 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
>>
>
>


-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 20:23:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 16 December 2015 20:23:09 UTC