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

Re: Updates and suggestions to BP17 Reuse vocabularies

From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:10:44 -0800
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56E31834.9090808@lbl.gov>
I think the real problem here is that BPs 16 and 17 are really saying 
the same thing in slightly different ways. It seems to me that at one 
point we had them as separate ideas, and I think maybe one was supposed 
to be about being internally consistent in your naming of things, and 
the other was about using standard vocabularies, so being externally 
consistent, but they seem to have wandered together over time. I wonder 
if someone more familiar with these two BPs (Antoine?) could take a look 
and tease them apart, or combine them into one. I find it odd that we 
have two BPs to handle a subtle difference in ways of reusing 
vocabularies, but one of them also extends as far as to cover a shared 
data model. If one can be that general, we don't really need both at 
all, IMHO.
-Annette

On 3/11/16 6:33 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Bernadette,
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
> OK I will submit a proposal.
> Maybe directly as a pull request.
>
> Antoine
>
> On 3/11/16 4:52 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
>> 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 17?
>>
>> 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,
>> Bernadette
>>
>> 2016-03-03 18:49 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl 
>> <mailto: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
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>

-- 
Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 19:11:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 11 March 2016 19:11:19 UTC