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

[VM] Featured vocabularies: FOAF, Dublin Core, and...?

From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@izb.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:21:44 +0100
To: SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20041109122144.GA124@Octavius>

The draft posted on Oct 27 [1] penciled in the following
"featured vocabularies" -- vocabularies to be described in the
Section 1 and provide examples for the good-practice issues
of Section 2 (e.g., a URI policy, published schemas, etc):

    FOAF
    Dublin Core
    SKOS
    Princeton Wordnet
    Maybe a major medical or life-sciences vocabulary

However, in last Monday's F2F and teleconference, we reached
the following conclusions:

-- Large-scale vocabularies such as SNOMED-CT, HL7, the NCI 
   metathesaurus, Unified Medical Language, and Gene Ontology
   should be cited to illustrate why it is useful to put
   such resources online.  However, these vocabularies do not
   use URIs and are in other respects not appropriate as 
   illustrations of the good-practice principles in Section 2.
   Therefore, these vocabularies should be discussed in a 
   separate point in Section 3 ("bleeding-edge" issues) [3].

-- Aldo had previously indicated to me by mail that he could
   in fact provide some information about good-practice issues
   (URI policy, etc) with respect to Princeton Wordnet.
   However, in last Monday's discussion I understood that we
   want to limit the good-practice examples to those for which
   an RDF representation is already maintained by the owning
   authority [4] and for which we are reasonably certain that
   those representations will be maintained over time [5].
   Have I correctly understood that this is not yet the case
   with Wordnet?

-- Rather, it was felt that it would be enough to use "simple
   vocabularies" in Section 2 [2].  The vocabularies mentioned
   were FOAF and Dublin Core [5], though I assume SKOS still
   belongs to this group?

-- It was felt that one "terminology style" vocabulary, such
   as a FAO thesaurus [7], would still be needed as an example [4],
   and Guus was tasked with helping to find such an example [6].

The draft I am preparing for the Wiki reflects this discussion.
Specifically: 

-- It adds a "bleeding edge" issue in Section 3 about
   large-scale terminological vocabularies;

-- It removes Wordnet and the placeholder
   for a "life-sciences vocabulary" as featured vocabularies
   in Section 1 and replaces that with a placeholder for a
   "terminology style" vocabulary, if we can find a good one
   to use.

Tom

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0148.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc#T17-05-47
[3] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc#T17-07-03
[4] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc#T17-08-48
[5] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc#T17-17-17
[6] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc#T17-23-52
[7] http://www.fao.org/agris/aos/Applications/intro.htm#fish

-- 
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 Tuesday, 9 November 2004 12:16:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:40 UTC