W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > August 2015

Re: dwbp-ISSUE-166: Should the data vocabularies section be removed? [Best practices document(s)]

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 14:02:34 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1Pzxdjm_wFV-pw7Yck494EEBOc-Po_VThv_UNcHPZSZvS+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Antoine,

Thanks for your feedback!

Actually I'd tend to agree with you: I'm not sure that we should focus so
> much on creation of vocabulary. If just because this business has many
> methodologies around, and everyone has their own focus.
>
> But this section is not very much about creating vocabularies per se. It's
> more about selecting/using vocabularies for publishing data, and publishing
> the vocabularies themselves (because they need to be properly published in
> order for others to re-use them). Which you appropriately take into
> account, I think, when you say that BPs 16/17/18 are in scope from your
> perspective.
>

It's nice to know that we are getting some consensus on the Data Vocabulary
section :)


> Actually the word 'create' appears only once in the BPs: in BP 20. And
> there, it appears next to 're-use' and honestly I'd be more than ok keeping
> only the 're-use' word in this BP.
>

Maybe BP20 can be mixed with BP19. IMO it would be better to provide
guidance on how to choose an existing vocabulary instead of how to choose
the right formalization level when creating a new one.


About BP 15 vs BP 19: in BP 15 'terms' refers to words in human language
> (well, I think - I was not the one writing this one). The other practices
> (BP 16-19) focus rather on the 'technical' resources (OWL classes and
> properties, SKOS concepts) that we construct. These artificial resources
> are the first-class citizens of the 'vocabularies' (OWL ontologies, SKOS
> concept schemes) defined in the intro of the section.
>
> I think (again, to take with a pinch of salt) that BP 15 and BP19 reflect
> that there are many levels of interoperability/comparability: one rather
> technical (BP19) and one that rather focuses on explicitly grounding 'soft'
> semantics in the practices of given organizations or applications (BP15).
>

I agree!


>
> The problem is that we won't ever be able to have a crystal clear
> formulation because:
> - 'term' is really the right notion to refer to the words and meanings as
> vehicled by natural languages [1]
> - many people use 'terms' to refer to OWL classes and properties [2]
> - natural language terms appear in the (artificial/technical/web)
> 'vocabularies' as the labels of the classes, properties, concepts that are
> in these vocabularies.


Maybe, instead of "Use standardized terms" it should be use "Use existing
vocabularies or standards to describe metadata". In this case, a vocabulary
provides definitions for terms and a standardized term will be a term
defined by an existing or standard. This is just an initial thought that
needs to be refined :)

Cheers,
Bernadette


> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology
> [2] http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology
>
> On 7/29/15 12:31 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In May we started a discussion about the Data Vocabularies section [1]
>> and we couldn't reach a consensus [2]. It is really important that we come
>> back to this discussion and reach consensus before the next DWBP draft's
>> publication.
>>
>> I still think that the creation of vocabularies is out of the scope of
>> the document. However, BP16(Document vocabularies), BP17(Share vocabularies
>> in an open way) and BP18(Vocabulary versioning) are more related to the
>> publication of vocabularies than to the creation. In this case, maybe we
>> could keep these BP and change a little bit the introduction of the section
>> to say that BP are related just to the usage and publication of
>> vocabularies. Then, in this case BP20(Choose the right formalization level)
>> should be removed.
>>
>> I also want to discuss the relationship between BP15(Use standardized
>> terms) and BP19(Re-use vocabularies). I am not sure if we should talk about
>> the use of standardized terms or the re-use of vocabularies or both. If we
>> won't discuss the creation of vocabularies then maybe BP-19 should also be
>> removed.
>>
>> Looking forward to your comments!
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Bernadette
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150625/#dataVocabularies
>> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015May/0038.html
>>
>> 2015-05-21 11:15 GMT-03:00 Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group
>> Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>>:
>>
>>     dwbp-ISSUE-166: Should the data vocabularies section be removed?
>> [Best practices document(s)]
>>
>>     http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/166
>>
>>     Raised by: Bernadette Farias Loscio
>>     On product: Best practices document(s)
>>
>>     https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015May/0038.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>> Centro de Informática
>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>


-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 8 August 2015 17:03:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:40 UTC