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: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:46:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CANx1PzzqufrQenPtkHyc=XG8CnzNmJUR+KKTuL=q1hp=gkaZ1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Annette and Antoine,

Thanks a lot for your comments about these BP!

@Antoine, thanks a lot for your work on improving this!

@Annette, would like us to make more changes on these BP or the proposal of
Antoine is ok [1][2]?


[1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MetadataStandardized
[2] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ReuseVocabularies

2016-03-13 23:31 GMT+01:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

> Hi Annette,
> Thanks for the feedback!
> For your suggestion, I'm afraid that this is not as simple as this. I wish
> it was, but:
> - "Reuse vocabularies" is also for data values (e.g SKOS concept schemes)
> - "Use standardized terms" may actually also be for fields.
> Maybe the essence of the BPs would be more obvious with counter-examples:
> - a standard list of fields can be implemented in two separate ontologies
> (this actually happened for a while in the museum domain with a model
> called CIDOC-CRM having two implementations), a case that doesn't really
> comply with the first BP.
> - a vocabulary like FOAF has been widely re-used (so being a great example
> of the first BP) without it having a formal standard status (especially at
> the beginning, it was very informal)
> Antoine
> On 3/13/16 8:16 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
>> I think this helps a lot. I do still wonder how clear the distinction
>> would be to someone not already familiar with things like Dublin Core.
>> Would it be reasonable to say "Use shared vocabularies for field names" and
>> then "Use standardized terms for data values"?
>> -Annette
>> Sent from a keyboard-challenged device
>> On Mar 13, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> Here is my suggested updates for BP 16 and 17 (Use standardized terms,
>>> Reuse vocabularies). Focus was on the intended outcome of BP "Reuse
>>> vocabularies" and trying to make a bit clearer the difference between the
>>> BPs. It's at
>>> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/320
>>> Is it better now?
>>> Note to editors: in the process I've updated links from these BPs to
>>> Requirements and Benefits (the icons) so, please check that the other parts
>>> of the document that keep track of cross-links are up-to-date!
>>> Cheers,
>>> Antoine
>>> On 3/12/16 11:00 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>>> Hi Annette,
>>>> BP16 is purely about standardization of terms (just using words or
>>>> codes being used elsewhere). BP17 is more about re-using artefacts already
>>>> built, which can be re-used to express knowledge as such (XMLSchema, OWL
>>>> ontologies, SKOS concept schemes).
>>>> There's also a difference of consensus: 'standardized' is quite formal,
>>>> top-down, 'shared' is more bottom-up.
>>>> We already had the discussion at this issue:
>>>> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/166
>>>> Frankly at the beginning there was just one: "Best Practice 18: Re-use
>>>> vocabularies"
>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150224/#dataVocabularies
>>>> Then a new one ("Best Practice 15: Use standardized terms") was
>>>> introduced in front of all others, without caring too much about the others:
>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150625/#MetadataStandardized
>>>> I seem to remember some in the group dearly wanted to see the words
>>>> 'standardized' and 'code lists' flashing at the top. And didn't like my
>>>> suggestion to merge the two BPs:
>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Aug/0083.html
>>>> These were the final resolution:
>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Sep/0027.html
>>>> It was even worse because the resolution then forced be to introduce
>>>> the word 'term' in the BP about re-using vocabularies (as engineered
>>>> artefacts) creating confusing with the BP that was recommending to use
>>>> anything standardized.
>>>> I've tried to express the distinction as I could, because I also felt
>>>> it was not clear. But one cannot turn lead into gold, it seems.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Antoine
>>>> On 3/11/16 8:10 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
Received on Monday, 14 March 2016 16:47:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 14 March 2016 16:47:26 UTC