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 12:25:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMFz4jitVzRao3SjQXvTN-j=5rtOnm6hXEw3z8-k+3-3KRD4RQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Now if I can only add the notes without all the extra text characters that
Phil has to fix we will be in business!.

Eric S.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
wrote:

> 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 20:26:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 16 December 2015 20:26:21 UTC