Re: WebSchemas, Schema.org and W3C

Hi Adrian

Thanks for the step forward

2013/1/23 Adrian Pohl <ad.pohl@gmail.com>

> On 22 January 2013 17:45, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ACTION
> >
> > Make a list of "globally adopted schemas" (vocabularies)  and put a
> > responsible agent name/email/URI whatever Web identifier in front of it
> >
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiYc9tLJbL4SdHByWkRYUkYxZU5qS1lQOE5FV0hiNlE#gid=0
> > Free to edit by anyone. If you are currently responsible for a
> vocabulary,
> > put your name and contact email address.
> > Let's take a month to see what we can gather. A month from now I will
> mail
> > all declared responsible to have confirmation, lock the document, and add
> > this information to LOV vocabularies description.
>
> I added myself to the spreadsheet. The question is: Why not put the
> information (mail adress, name and/or URI of contact person) directly
> into the original vocabulary document?


Of course, this seems an obvious path. What we find in vocabulary metadata
so far (if any, of course) is basically dc:publisher, dc:creator and/or
dc:contributor. Those are great information, but valid at the time of last
publication (itself not always available).
Adding the contact information inside the publication means that the
information is valid at this time. Moreover, some publications are locked
and can't be changed because they are specifications or project
deliverables.
So the "conservator" (see below) information could be declared outside the
file also. I think about W3C having a lot of vocabularies under its
umbrella, either recommendations at various stages, drafts and various
notes without clear status inside the files.
All information about those would be very handy to have in a single
separate resource.


> One could use the property
> http://purl.org/openorg/contact. I just did this for lv. [1]  If
> others also do this you wouldn't have to update a google doc but LOV
> would get the data when pulling versions of each vocabulary.
>

Of course we can improve the LOV-Bot to extract such extra information if
present, but we need have a consensus on the best property to use.


> Or is there another appropriate property? The openorg vocab isn't
> served as RDF yet, which probably might be a problem for people to use
> it.
>

I'm not sure http://purl.org/openorg/contact (I was not aware of this
vocabulary, actually) is the best candidate. I'm not even sure that
"contact" conveys the semantics we need. I would lean towards a more
"librarian" approach, so to speak. Looking into the LoC MARC list of
relators, "Conservator" http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/con seems
quite close to the role we need.

"Use for the named entity responsible for documenting, preserving, or
treating printed or manuscript material, works of art, artifacts, or other
media."

Need more advices on this - just added for the record in the spreadsheet :
responsible person (aka "Conservator")

Bernard



> @Christopher: Are you planning to publish the openorg vocab in RDF anytime
> soon?
>

Good question :)


> - Adrian
>
> [1] http://lobid.org/vocab/lobid#
>
>


-- 
*Bernard Vatant
*
Vocabularies & Data Engineering
Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
 Skype : bernard.vatant
Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://blog.hubjects.com/>

--------------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca**          **                   *
3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
www.mondeca.com
Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>