- From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:14:55 -0300
- To: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
- Cc: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANx1PzxjcZYbnCV3ReK3j2eSEOsMUygp77Be6XbbWwai9WHUKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hello, Thanks a lot for the feedback! In this case, should we remove information about domain and range from the vocabulary specification [1]? Cheers, Berna [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#vocabulary-specification 2015-12-16 13:14 GMT-03:00 Laufer <laufer@globo.com>: > > > Hi, Eric, > > As Joao Paulo said, if we feel the necessity do define a domain/range we > need to specify sub-properties or sub-classes. But we do not need to > necessarily define domain/range in duv. > > The examples are a good way of illustrating the use of duv. > > Cheers, > > Laufer > --- > > . . . .. . . > . . . .. > . .. . > > > > Em 16/12/2015 13:46, Eric Stephan escreveu: > > Joao Paulo, > > I felt like the DUV got into "trouble" :-) somewhat when we attempted > defining subproperties to refine how we wanted to use a property based on > an existing property. > > What do you think of Laufer's idea that instead of attempting to manage > domains and ranges that we illustrate using the classes and properties? > > Thanks so much, > > Eric S. > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:42 AM, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org> > wrote: > >> I agree with Laufer about domain-range definitions. If we feel the need >> to constrain domain and range beyond what is defined in existing >> vocabularies, then we need to specify sub-properties. >> >> Regards, >> João Paulo >> >> >> From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com> >> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 1:34 PM >> To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> >> Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, João Paulo Almeida < >> jpalmeida@ieee.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: Data usage vocabulary continues to advance... >> >> >> >> Hi, Eric, Berna, Sumit, >> >> Thank you for the updates. >> >> I have a comment about Domain/Range definitions. I think that properties >> that are reused from other vocabularies (for example, dct:title) should not >> have Domain/Range definitions in duv. >> >> I still really prefer the "Examples" section after the "Vocabulary >> Overview" section, maybe after the "Vocabulary Specification" section, as >> in dqv document. >> >> Cheers, >> Laufer >> >> -- >> >> . . . .. . . >> . . . .. >> . .. . >> >> >> >> Em 16/12/2015 11:34, Eric Stephan escreveu: >> >> The data usage vocabulary editors are still working on a new revision of >> the document http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html. In anticipation >> of a possible vote this week I wanted those who have interest or commented >> last week to see where our document was headed. >> >> All - Major changes were made reusing existing classes and properties >> from other vocabularies. Domains and ranges were added to compliment our >> model. >> >> This revision includes digging deeper into the SPAR ontologies >> http://www.sparontologies.net/. At this point I really feel we need to >> show our work to the citations communities, perhaps they will direct us to >> reuse other terms that we are currently using. >> >> Laufer and Phil - We are still working on the overview, there are a few >> properties that need to be added to the specification, and the vocabulary >> needs updating. That being said, we added significant detail to the model >> picture adding all the properties as requested. >> >> Joao Paulo - We have hopefully addressed most of your concerns about >> reuse. We reworked the citation model, and included the a class fabio >> ontology from SPAR based on examples >> http://www.sparontologies.net/ontologies/fabio . We considered >> DataCitationAct and looking at CITO CitationAct we felt it satisfied the >> DUV needs without extending. We did find notes about tying oa:Annotation >> and oa:Motivation to help explain the motivation of a citation act. Based >> on Phil's recommendations we used the Organization ontology as a example >> for refining how we want to describe Agents and Usage. >> >> Other than the outstanding work I mentioned in this note, as you examine >> the current document if you are aware of any showstoppers please let us >> know by Thursday 9pm Honolulu Hawaii time. >> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DUV+Comments&iso=20151217T21&p1=103 >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Eric, Berna, Sumit >> >> -- Bernadette Farias Lóscio Centro de Informática Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 18:15:44 UTC