- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 19:41:52 +0000
- To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
- Cc: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
On 16/12/2015 19:25, Eric Stephan wrote: > Joao Paulo and Laufer, > > Berna and I discussed a path forward. We will remove property tables in the > Properties section that were previously defined in other vocabularies. In > the vocabulary summary section we will discuss how you external and DUV > classes and properties together. > > This seems to be more consistent with other vocabulary efforts. Really? http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#vocabulary-specification for example, lists all the properties used, most of which are dcterms... I think it's useful to show how you expect terms from other vocabs to be used. If you want to add a domain and range, then, OK, as has been said - define sub properties, but you can do it less formally by adding a usage note (vann:usageNote). That can be free text that says "when used in this context, ex:foo is used in this way" Again, DCAT provides examples of this. Hmmm... Phil > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br> > wrote: > >> 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 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 19:41:49 UTC