Re: Remove the Data Vocabularies section from the DWBP document

Hi,

Following up on this conversation, I tend to think this section is still 
in-scope.
In terms of 'Best Practice 14: Use standardized terms', is 'use 
standardized terms' not the exact same thing as 'use a vocabulary'. My 
understanding is a term is standardized because it is described 
logically within a vocabulary, no?

Bernadette, in a previous email you wrote: "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"

But vocabularies are relevant for all data, not just metadata. so for me 
these are are two important and distinct BPs. Or, if anything BP17 
subsumes BP2, as metadata is data.

Cheers,
Deirdre

On 20/05/2015 21:39, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Bernadette, everyone,
>
> I am sorry: I see that there is discussion, and reckon that this is 
> useful for the group, but I just don't have enough time for it. Unless 
> you want to the DQV to be further postponed...
>
> Trying to react:
>
> I would be very careful with everything that includes 'terms'. This is 
> an even more slippery slope than the word 'vocabulary'!
> Actually maybe a reason why Annette's comment in January ([1], is it?) 
> did not take off is it seemed to consider that 'vocabulary' ('large 
> standard vocabularies') in a quite different meaning as 'vocabulary' 
> in the proposed BP. Then people started to discuss what vocabulary 
> were - and giving more work for section 7.4 instead of declaring it 
> out-of-scope.
> In fact I would argue against using 'terms' whatsoever. So perhaps 
> Bernadette's suggestion to remove the "BP: Use standard terms to 
> define metadata" was going in the right direction. I'm not sure I have 
> the time to envision all the consequences of the proposed changes.
>
> Two additional caveats:
> - one of the options raised the past days was to replace the voc 
> section to the LD BP. I still think making a reference both not 
> confusing and appropriate to the LD BPs will probably take a lot of 
> time and space, not resulting in any gain.
> - scope-wise, as days pass and I'm thinking of these issues I'm having 
> more and more trouble seeing creation of vocabularies as entirely 
> out-of-scope. What if a dataset publisher cannot re-use an existing 
> vocabulary? Will you leave her without any guidance, while vocabulary 
> design is a notorious mine field? Especially considering that BPs for 
> creation of a good voc happen to be the same as BPs for selecting a 
> vocabulary to re-use. When one create a vocabulary, one should almost 
> always have re-use of this vocabulary in mind. In fact the best 
> approaches to data publication (in a LD environment at least) would 
> require mixing-and-matching existing vocabularies for shared needs 
> with new elements for specific needs. Oh, wonder, this is precisely 
> what we do for our own DUV and DQV vocabularies :-)
>
>
> At the end of the day, if someone wants to have a go at re-working the 
> section, I won't oppose it of course. If someone tries something, then 
> we can see if the loss of information is productive or not. But I 
> can't guarantee I will easily accept the result, for the reasons 
> mentioned above :-/
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0185.html
>
> On 5/18/15 11:15 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the feedback!
>>
>> @Eric, I fully agree with you! IMO, vocabularies creation is a 
>> subject that should have its own note or document (we already have).
>>
>> @Antoine, I understand that we have requirements in the UC documents 
>> related to the data vocabularies, however I don't think that we need 
>> to cover all the requirements that were extracted from the use cases 
>> (some of them are just out of scope). Previously, we agreed to cover 
>> the requirements for data vocabularies in the BP document, however 
>> reviewing the document as a whole, IMO creation of vocabularies is 
>> not in our scope. I also think that this is part of the creation 
>> process: as the document evolves and the group gets more mature, we 
>> should be able to change previous opinions/decisions.
>>
>> However, I agree that it is really  important to talk about data 
>> vocabularies and I'd like to make a proposal:
>>
>> 1. To keep the data vocabularies section, but to keep just BP related 
>> with vocabularies reuse. We already have "BP: Re-use vocabularies" 
>> and new ones may also be included when necessary.
>> 2. To remove "BP: Use standard terms to define metadata" from the 
>> metadata section and to include the "BP: Use standardized terms". The 
>> "BP:Use standard terms" may be merged with the "BP: Re-use 
>> vocabularies".
>>
>> Please, let me know what do you think.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bernadette
>>
>> 2015-05-15 13:50 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:ericphb@gmail.com>>:
>>
>>     Antoine and all,
>>
>>     The reason why I +1 the removal of the section is that the best 
>> practices have already been largely recorded elsewhere.   I like the 
>> material written in the vocab section, but if it is described in more 
>> detail elsewhere, then I'd prefer having a reference to the more 
>> detailed material.  I believe you mentioned the elimination of the 
>> provenance section because the same rationale.  I agree, in fact as I 
>> was writing the provenance section I kept thinking there is a wealth 
>> of documentation that the W3C PROV group has already provided and 
>> that what was written was really not insight, but a reference.
>>
>>     I believe Phil mentioned in this thread rather than removing the 
>> mention of vocabularies entirely we instead have references of where 
>> people can go for guidance (with possible amendments for broader Open 
>> Data).
>>
>>     If the argument is for the vocabulary section to be retained, I 
>> would need to hear how it is completely distinct from what was 
>> previously written by other groups to change my vote.
>>
>>     Eric S.
>>
>>     On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Annette Greiner 
>> <amgreiner@lbl.gov <mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>> wrote:
>>
>>         I've mentioned it once or twice. See, for example, my email 
>> to the group on January 21.
>>         -Annette
>>
>>         On May 15, 2015, at 1:41 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl 
>> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>>
>>          > Interesting. Have you made a formal suggestion about it 
>> while we were writing?
>>          >
>>          > Antoine
>>          >
>>          > On 5/14/15 8:00 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
>>          >> not so. I have always held that they are out of scope.
>>          >> --
>>          >> Annette Greiner
>>          >> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>>          >> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>>          >> 510-495-2935 <tel:510-495-2935>
>>          >>
>>          >> On May 14, 2015, at 2:49 AM, Antoine Isaac 
>> <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl 
>> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>>> wrote:
>>          >>
>>          >>> Hi Bernadette,
>>          >>>
>>          >>>
>>          >>> These best practices have been deemed in scope earlier, 
>> by all the group.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>> Centro de Informática
>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>

-- 
--------------------------------------
Deirdre Lee, Director
Derilinx - Linked & Open Data Solutions
  
Web:      www.derilinx.com
Email:    deirdre@derilinx.com
Tel:      +353 (0)1 254 4316
Mob:      +353 (0)87 417 2318
Linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/
Twitter:  @deirdrelee

Received on Thursday, 21 May 2015 13:55:54 UTC