Re: Remove the Data Vocabularies section from the DWBP document

+1

Em quarta-feira, 13 de maio de 2015, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
escreveu:

> I agree with Bernadette. This is something that has bothered me for a long
> time. I don’t think it’s in our scope to tell people how to go about making
> a new vocabulary. I think the one thing that is in our scope is mentioning
> that existing vocabularies should be used in metadata wherever possible,
> and that is in the metadata BP.
> -Annette
> --
> Annette Greiner
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> 510-495-2935
>
> On May 13, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bfl@cin.ufpe.br');>> wrote:
>
> Hi João Paulo,
>
> I agree with you! However, I don't think that it is in the scope of the
> DWBP document to provide BP for creating vocabularies.
>
> Cheers,
> Bernadette
>
> 2015-05-13 14:27 GMT-03:00 João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jpalmeida@ieee.org');>>:
>
>> Dear Bernadette and All,
>>
>> What if there is no established data format or vocabulary for some domain
>> which can be used to represent data in that domain? … so I don’t think we
>> should restrict ourselves to talking about reusing an existing vocabulary,
>> as is may be necessary to create a vocabulary in order to publish data.
>>
>> Regards,
>> João Paulo
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bfl@cin.ufpe.br');>>
>> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 1:40 PM
>> To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aisaac@few.vu.nl');>>
>> Cc: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','public-dwbp-wg@w3.org');>" <
>> public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','public-dwbp-wg@w3.org');>>
>> Subject: Re: Remove the Data Vocabularies section from the DWBP document
>> Resent-From: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','public-dwbp-wg@w3.org');>>
>> Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 16:41:06 +0000
>>
>> Hello Antoine,
>>
>> Please, find below the list of BP for Data Vocabularies and a brief
>> explanation why IMO they are out of the scope of the DWBP document.
>>
>> Best Practice 14: Document vocabularies: this BP discusses how to
>> document vocabularies instead of how to reuse vocabularies (There is also a
>> redundancy between this BP and  Best Practice 1: Provide metadata).
>>
>> Best Practice 15: Share vocabularies in an open way: this best practice
>> concerns how to share vocabularies instead of how to reuse them.
>>
>> Best Practice 16: Vocabulary versioning: this BP concerns how to identify
>> changes to a vocabulary over time instead of how to reuse vocabularies
>> (There is a BP that deals with dataset versioning - Best Practice 8:
>> Provide versioning information).
>>
>> Best Practice 17: Re-use vocabularies: IMO this is the only BP that
>> concerns the reuse of vocabularies. However, there is a redundancy between
>> this and Best Practice 2: Use standard terms to define metadata
>>
>> Best Practice 18: Choose the right formalization level: again this BP
>> concerns vocabularies creation instead of reuse of vocabularies.
>>
>> kind regards,
>> Bernadette
>>
>> 2015-05-13 11:31 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aisaac@few.vu.nl');>>:
>>
>>> -1.
>>>
>>> If there are redundancies between the MD BD and the Voc BP, then maybe
>>> it's not a good sign for the MD BP themselves. They've probably be scoped
>>> too widely... But what are precisely the redundancies you've spotted? We
>>> probably need to know more.
>>>
>>> Second, I don't have a strong objection refering to the W3C Best
>>> Practices for Publishing Linked Data.
>>> But we already reached the conclusion that there was value reprising
>>> those BPs because (1) that LD BPS were not an official W3C rec and (2) this
>>> was an opportunity to write BP that would be less technically biased. I
>>> don't see why we'd revisit this position, while it already had costed us
>>> enough discussion time last year. Especially I wouldn't be ready to revisit
>>> this position based on the fact that some other part of the document would
>>> be redundant. That's not the right reason.
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/13/15 2:58 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> On 13/05/2015 14:25, yaso@nic.br
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yaso@nic.br');> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, Berna
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/13/2015 10:06 AM, Eric Stephan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eric S
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <
>>>>>> bfl@cin.ufpe.br <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bfl@cin.ufpe.br');>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to propose to remove the Data Vocabularies section from the
>>>>>>> DWBP
>>>>>>> document. After reviewing the document, I believe that there is a
>>>>>>> lot of
>>>>>>> redundancy between the BP for data vocabularies and BP for metadata.
>>>>>>> Besides, IMO the creation of vocabularies is not in the scope of the
>>>>>>> document.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead of having a section for data vocabularies, we may refer to
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> Standard Vocabularies section of the W3C Best Practices for
>>>>>>> Publishing
>>>>>>> Linked Data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Bernadette
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>>>>>>> Centro de Informática
>>>>>>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>> Centro de Informática
>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .