Re: rest of review of BP doc

Hi,

Btw I thought I would pass this email I've just seen on group I'm registered:
[
Defining "vocabularies," for an excellent reference on the definition of vocabularies, check out: https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#dataVocabularies
]
This is even more optimistic than me ;-)

Antoine

On 21/04/16 09:20, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Annette,
>
>
> Just on the voc BPs...
>
>
>> Intro to Vocabularies
>> --
>>
>> "possible subjects for books" is not a good example of a controlled vocabulary. There are two other good examples, so that could just be removed.
>
>
> It is a damn good example, actually I'm more sure about this one that others. In fact this one is clearly about SKOS-level vocabularies, while the other example could be about OWL-level vocabularies.
> Now, there is repetition in these paragraphs, as I see it appears several times. Certainly one occurrence could be removed.
>
>
>>
>> The first paragraph seems to be suggesting that controlled vocabularies enable easy translation, but it's confusingly phrased. The last three sentences could be changed to read "Standardized vocabularies can also serve to improve the usability of datasets. Say a dataset contains a reference to a concept described in a vocabulary that has been translated into several languages. Such a reference allows applications to localize their display of the data depending on the language of the user."
>>
>
>
> "Standardized" is quite orthogonal to whether there are translations in the vocabulary or not. So I would not mention it your first sentence. Otherwise the re-writing is better, indeed.
>
>>
>> The last paragraph refers to "the former kind of vocabulary". It's not clear what kind that is. It's not clear what the point of that paragraph is.
>>
>
>
> It refers to "vocabularies of classes and properties that structure the descriptions of resources in (linked) datasets.". I don't mind adding that whole shit into the sentence if it makes clearer.
> The idea of the paragraph was to express the difference between (very roughly, in Semantic Web and more mundane terms) OWL and SKOS.
> I agree it read bad, for two reasons:
> 1. W3C decided some time ago it was fancy to use 'vocabulary' to refer to artefacts that that play completely different roles in the RDF technology context (http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology). After this move was made, try to express things clearly, especially when
> 2. First versions of these paragraphs were criticized as being too technology-specific (real 'Linked Data'). Bad luck, adding stuff to make it less 'technology-biased' makes it also less intelligible, quite unsurprisingly.
>
>
>> 17. right formalization
>> --
>>
>> We say "a data publisher should opt for a level of formal semantics that fit data and applications." We don't want to tell people to use formal semantics, just to pick the right level or formalization. This should be changed to "a data publisher should opt for a level of semantic formalization that fits the data and its applications."
>
>
> I don't see the difference between both, but I'm fine.
>
>
>>
>> The intended outcome doesn't specifically address the issue of formalization.
>>
>
>
> Something like
> [
> Higher level of formalization make vocabularies and the data that uses them more difficult to produce and re-use.
> The data should support all application cases but should not be more complex to produce and reuse than necessary;
> ]
> ?
>
>>
>> The examples are about design of vocabularies, not about choosing them.
>>
>
>
> Yes because from the vocabulary use perspective the BP is about questioning how a vocabulary has been designed before choosing it. I don't know how to reflect it better.
>
>
>>
>> The test is hard to do. Finding and implementing an inference engine seems beyond the scope of publishing data.
>>
>
> I agree, even though it's not so much about implementing an inference engine than running an existing one.
> My take on this is that data publishers should run their data through people who know their stuff and are keen on simplicity (say, as opposed to some OWL modeling aficionado in your nearest CS department). But I was told that the tests needed to be made by machines. That's a place where blindly requesting to apply our BP form hurts.
>
> A.
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 21 April 2016 12:47:01 UTC