W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2013

Re: New iteration of the Vocabulary Management at W3C Draft

From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 07:15:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CABzDd=44fJACC76UjbvPSOWn2ToL1xsUazKc_zbKFAX3DdprAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>
It seems like discussing this in public instead of private is a
feature not a bug :-D

//Ed

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> And that is a reply to the previous mail, also not meant for this list...
>
> Sigh. This is not my day
>
> Ivan
>
> On Mar 1, 2013, at 16:55 , Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Sandro,
>>
>> some comments on the latest version:
>>
>> Section 1
>> - There is a discussion to pursue on how to control/redirect the schema.org specific vocabulary discussions. This is to be done with DanBri, but worth adding a note into the document
>>
>> Section 3
>> - At the moment the text does say that the group must have an open/consensus decision process, ie, there _is_ a requirement on who can put something into /ns, but "Provide a simple Web interface for people to allocate namespace and then..." does not explain how this is achieved. It suggests that anybody can get an /ns with no strings attached. Yes, I see the terms of service, so that may be it, but I am not sure that is enough
>> - By the way, to be very picky: does, eg, access to a mercurial repo fulfill the "Web interface ... update the contents of the namespace document as needed"? Maybe, until we have the clear technical solution, we should not necessarily say "Web interface"...
>> - https q&a: it is correct that, say, https://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa does resolve to the same as http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa. But what if somebody wants to have *only* https for a vocabulary? Can we provide that?
>> - id.w3.org q&a: I have a problem with this, insofar as if we do build up an environment with lots of /ns URI-s, it becomes awkward to set up a second set of vocabularies with yet another URI pattern... We may have to make this decision sooner than later
>> - foo.org q&a: I do not understand this: "or that see a need for someday moving away from W3C".
>>
>> Section 4
>> - I wonder whether a "preferred prefix" should not be part of the metadata with a possible service for conflict resolution. In practice, well accepted prefixes (dc, foaf, etc) are important...
>>
>> Section 5
>> - en masse q&a: taking the whole of NCBO is of course a question, but would we start with a core set nevertheless? For example, the way the RDFa initial context vocabularies[1] have been chosen was to use search engine dump to find the most widely used vocabularies, and we chose the top 10 (or 15, I do not remember). I think that seeding the directory that way would be an important starting point. If we take only a limited number, then the 'dwarfing' effect can be reduced.
>>
>> General comments:
>>
>> I think it would be important to have a feeling on what can/should be done, technically, pretty soon, like _in the coming weeks_. If the tools available for hosting are not really usable, or if the directory does not have some minimal tooling, then this may kill the whole thing. I think it would be very important to give this a high priority. Do you have a feeling/ideas/plans for this?
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1.html
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/profile/data/
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2013, at 16:44 , Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Sandro produced a new version after a fairly extensive re-write:
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/2013/02/vrc.html
>>>
>>> this reflects the many discussions that we had in the past days/weeks.
>>>
>>> I am sure there are further comments on the document; I actually have some, too, that I will send through an answer to this mail to have a proper threaded archives. However, I personally believe (and I think so does Sandro) that the document is good enough to be shared with our closest friends already; the plan is to share it, on the week end, with Tom Baker and Dan Brickley, and to put it on the agenda of the Semantic Web Coordination Group (next Wednesday).
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 23 March 2013 11:15:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:40 UTC