W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2004

[VM,ALL] Revised scope statement

From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@izb.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:02:03 +0200
To: SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040613100203.GA1824@Octavius>

Danny's comment prompted me to expand and elaborate on the
scope section as a whole.  I have also added "Registries"
to the list of things that should be mentioned in a VM note,
but not discussed in detail.

A revised copy of the draft Task Force Description is
attached further below.  If Ralph can give me CVS access,
I could maintain this evolving draft at a stabile address.

Tom

> SCOPE
>     The VM note should start with a statement of scope that
>     establishes and defines the jargon to be used in the note
>     (terms like Terms, Term Set or Vocabulary, etc).
> 
>     If the areas outlined above (URIs, Policies, Documentation)
>     are considered in scope, here are some relevant and related
>     issues that should be mentioned in a scope statement --
>     where possible with pointers to other relevant documents --
>     but probably not treated in further detail in the VM note:
> 
>     -- Describing terms: What attributes do terms have (e.g.,
>        Name, Definition, Comment...)?  How important is it
>        for interoperability to use existing attribute sets?
> 
>     -- Application profiles: Is it valid and useful to
>        distinguish between a "term declaration" and a "term
>        usage" -- eg, in annotations or "application profiles"?
> 
>     -- Thesauri and ontologies: What types of "vocabulary"
>        are there (eg, "metadata element sets", "thesauri",
>        "ontologies") and to which do these guidelines apply?
> 
>     -- Technical details of vocabulary declaration: The
>        VM note should probably not itself take a stand on the
>        use of a particular flavor of OWL/RDF+S for declaring
>        a vocabulary.  Rather, it should point off to other
>        documents that focus on this issue.
> 
>     -- Registries: Registries are applications that hold,
>        ingest, or harvest vocabularies for display, search,
>        tool configuration, inferencing, or other such
>        services.  The VM note could perhaps point to some
>        registry-building efforts in the context of saying
>        that they are basically out of scope.

----

Discussion draft, 2004-06-13

SWBPD "Vocabulary Management" Task Force Description

NAME          
    Vocabulary Management

STATUS        
    Considered

COORDINATORS  
    Tom Baker and ?

MEMBERS
    Libby Miller
    Natasha Noy
    Dan Brickley 
    Alistair Miles ("al")?
    Alan Rector ("alan")?
    James Hendler ("jim")?
    Ralph Swick (maybe)
    Aldo Gangemi

OBJECTIVES
    The goal of this Task Force is to describe best practice for
    declaring and managing terms and term sets (vocabularies)
    for use in a Semantic Web environment.  Specifically, the
    Task Force will describe the following:
    
    -- Identification of terms with URIs
       -- Term-related entities identified: eg, a term concept,
          a historical version of a term, a set of terms.
          Possibly: a set of terms declared elsewhere and 
          "reused" in an "application profile".
       -- Formation of URI strings: eg, "implied semantics", 
          "# versus /", version numbers in URI strings.
       -- Versioning of terms ("change management"): event-
          based model linking chains of "term versions" to a
          "term concept" [DCMI-VERSIONING].  Analogy to W3C
          practice for identifying document versions?
    
    -- Policies for term declaration and identification
       -- Term-identification policy: eg, "namespace policy" 
          [DCMI-NAMESPACE], expectations about persistence, 
          maintenance, institutional commitment, semantic
          stability.
       -- "Assertion etiquette" ("good neighbor" policies):
          eg, if DCMI and Library of Congress mutually assert
          a subPropertyOf relationship between MARC Relator
          codes with respect to dc:contributor.
       -- "If we want to declare a term but lack the
          institutional context appropriate to a persistent
          namespace policy, how can we do it?  Should I use an
          existing term, get DCMI to declare one, or declare
          my own?  How can I coin a URI?  Where would I put it?"
    
    -- Documenting terms
       -- What should term URIs "resolve to" (eg, TAG 
          recommendations with regard to RDF or RDDL)?
       -- What are minimum expectations with regard to 
          availability of HTML Web pages, RDF schemas,
          and the like?  Who can we point to that does it 
          right?
       -- Is there a notion of "canonical" versus "derived" 
          sources?
       -- Hints for work flow to maintain multiple 
          documentation forms in synch.

APPROACH
    The issues above have been discussed and documented in various
    vocabulary maintenance communities.  The Task Force deliverable
    should provide an overview of the issues involved in declaring
    and maintaining a vocabulary, pointing to available examples
    of good practice and summarizing their underlying principles.

SCOPE
    The VM note should start with a statement of scope that
    establishes and defines the jargon to be used in the note
    (terms like Terms, Term Set or Vocabulary, etc).

    If the areas outlined above (URIs, Policies, Documentation)
    are considered in scope, here are some relevant and related
    issues that should be mentioned in a scope statement --
    where possible with pointers to other relevant documents --
    but probably not treated in further detail in the VM note:

    -- Describing terms: What attributes do terms have (e.g.,
       Name, Definition, Comment...)?  How important is it
       for interoperability to use existing attribute sets?

    -- Application profiles: Is it valid and useful to
       distinguish between a "term declaration" and a "term
       usage" -- eg, in annotations or "application profiles"?

    -- Thesauri and ontologies: What types of "vocabulary"
       are there (eg, "metadata element sets", "thesauri",
       "ontologies") and to which do these guidelines apply?

    -- Technical details of vocabulary declaration: The
       VM note should probably not itself take a stand on the
       use of a particular flavor of OWL/RDF+S for declaring
       a vocabulary.  Rather, it should point off to other
       documents that focus on this issue.

    -- Registries: Registries are applications that hold,
       ingest, or harvest vocabularies for display, search,
       tool configuration, inferencing, or other such
       services.  The VM note could perhaps point to some
       registry-building efforts in the context of saying
       that they are basically out of scope.

DELIVERABLE
    A relatively concise technical note summarizing
    principles of good practice, with pointers to examples,
    about the identification of terms and term sets with
    URIs, related policies and etiquette, and expectations
    regarding documentation.

TARGET AUDIENCE
    -- Maintainers of terms and term sets (vocabularies)
    for use in a
       Semantic Web environment.
    -- Anyone else wishing to declare terms reusably.

DEPENDENCIES
    -- THES - SWBP Thesaurus Task Force
       http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission
    -- FOAF
       http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
    -- SKOS - SWAD Europe
       http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/
    -- Dublin Core - DCMI
       http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-namespace/
       http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
    -- Dublin Core - CEN MMI-DC Working Group
       http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/Versioning-20040611.txt
       http://www.cenorm.be/isss/cwa14855/
    -- Image Annotation meeting in Madrid
       http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2004/06/07/2004-06-07.html#1086615887.400193

REFERENCES
    [DCMI-NAMESPACE]
    http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-namespace/
    [DCMI-VERSIONING]
    http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/Versioning-20040611.txt

-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                        Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven         mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                          work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                    fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
Received on Sunday, 13 June 2004 05:55:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:39 UTC