W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: Updates and suggestions to BP17 Reuse vocabularies

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:52:02 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1Pzx5q40QApWDenwYxo4BuQ-jaWY_ufOkEzDc8dkv0r4saw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Antoine,

Thanks for your message! I reviewed  BP17: Reuse Vocabularies and I agree
with you that the two outcomes that you mentioned are confused. Maybe, we
can keep just the first one.

Could you please help us to make a proposal for the intended outcome of BP

Feel free to use the constructions from your choice. It is just important
to keep in mind that we should be able to test the BP.

kind regards,

2016-03-03 18:49 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

> Hi everyone,
> I've done my action on suggesting examples for BP17 "Reuse vocabularies"
> [1]
> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/307
> In the process I became stuck again with the intended outcomes. It had
> already flagged it some time ago [2]. At the time the discussion had
> focused on the editorial points. But now it's really about whether these
> intended outcomes should be in this BP or elsewhere, or actually whether
> they make sense at all!
> 1. I'm really not sure whether these two  outcomes should be specific to
> BP17"Reuse vocabularies":
> [
> It should be possible for machines to automatically process the data
> within a dataset.
> It should be possible for machines to automatically process the metadata
> that describes a dataset.
> ]
> I.e. for me these are more intended outcomes of machine-readable data and
> metadata in general not specific to reusing vocabularies. In fact it we
> think they make sense for BP17 then I think we should add them to BP16 "Use
> standardized terms' and many other BPs. Standardized lists of codes and
> terms also help machines to automatically process data.
> 2. The first intended outcome look more specific to vocabularies:
> [
> It should be possible to automatically compare two or more datasets when
> they use the same vocabulary to describe metadata.
> ]
> But I also think it should be both in BP16 and BP17... And this intended
> outcome is confusingly written for me:
> 1. When two datasets use the same vocabulary, it just *is* possible to
> compare them. This is much stronger than what the sentence 'it should be
> possible to compare them' hints at. This reads poorly.
> 2. This sentence alludes to a situation where 'datasets use the same
> vocabulary to describe metadata'. Datasets here describe metadata? Like,
> datasets of meta-metadata? This exists, but I'm fairly sure this is not
> what was meant. Couldn't we just simplify and remove ' to describe
> metadata'?
> By the way I noticed that now a lot of intended outcome don't start with
> 'it should be possible' anymore. If it's not mandatory, I'd like very much
> to get read of this construction in the vocabulary best practices.
> Best,
> Antoine
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVocabularies
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/211

Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 03:52:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 11 March 2016 03:52:53 UTC