Re: The dcterm/schema.org issue: a proposal to move forward

I feel very uncomfortable about (a) defining yet another namespace for metadata terms and (b) creating yet another sub-list/profile of metadata terms, when in both cases there are existing standards that we could reference instead.

If we’re going to have some core terms then we should have some very clear criteria for choosing them, such as their utility in the display or validation or conversion of CSV files.

Jeni

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Reply: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>>
Date: 8 October 2014 at 11:16:15
To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>>, W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>>
Subject:  Re: The dcterm/schema.org issue: a proposal to move forward

>  
> On 08 Oct 2014, at 12:04 , Andy Seaborne wrote:
>  
> > On 08/10/14 10:30, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >> On 8 October 2014 10:16, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >>> On 04/10/14 08:06, Ivan Herman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. We define a small set of core properties that we consider to be
> >>>>> essential in the metadata. "We define" means that we specify the terms to be
> >>>>> used in the metadata specification as well as their data types and intended
> >>>>> meaning
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This makes sense though I do have one small question:
> >>>
> >>> By "we define" do you include giving it a w3c-csv:xyz URI then define
> >>> skos:/rdfs:/owl: mappings to other vocabularies? Or, if not, in what way is
> >>> it different to defining a property or class?
> >>
> >> That (creating an actual vocabulary definition) sounds the simplest
> >> way of making sure we're precise. However we might not want to be more
> >> precise than the mass-deployment vocabularies we're basing it on, and
> >> both DC and schema.org are pretty flexible. And of course it is
> >> comically close to http://xkcd.com/927/ ...
> >
> > Sure but a broadly worded definition isn't trying to be completely prescriptive.
> >
> > The defintion is going to be quite broad so only "precise" in the sense of a defintion  
> at all. "it's a title" - we don't constrain what a 'title' is.
> >
> > This, and Ivan's message, are just about whether the same broad definition is given  
> a URI name of not. Having "http://w3/csv#" and the list in the original message seem no  
> more than "data on the web" to me.
> >
>  
> In fact, that is true, something like that is probably a way to go. When generating an RDF  
> for, say, 'title'
>  
> - if there is a @context that assigns a URI to 'title', use that as a predicate URI
> - otherwise use http://www.w3.org/ns/csvw#title
>  
> ie, there is a URI, you are correct. Except that we do not, normatively, define any kind  
> of skos or owl or whatever equivalence to dc:title or schema:title; users can do that  
> if they wish.
>  
> Ivan
>  
>  
> > Andy
> >
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >
> >
>  
>  
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  

--  
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/

Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 08:33:42 UTC