- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 09:01:06 +0100
- To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>
- CC: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
+1 Encouraging the reuse of vocabularies is in scope, how to develop new ones is out AFAIC. The LD-BP doc gives more on this, including tips on how to assess whether a new vocab is needed. On 13/05/2015 18:35, Bernadette Farias Lóscio 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>: > >> 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> >> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 1:40 PM >> To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> >> Cc: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: Remove the Data Vocabularies section from the DWBP document >> Resent-From: <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>: >> >>> -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 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> >>>>>> 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 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 14 May 2015 08:01:11 UTC