- From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:22:19 -0300
- To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANx1PzzZ3qcu_VXCCC-g7t6rM8t66cr8-Tm29SLtrQy9c=j2Ag@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Eric, I also like this idea! Let's keep the tables and add the notes. Thanks! Berna 2015-12-16 17:19 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>: > Phil, > > I'd certainly prefer leaving in the tables and adding the usage note as > you described. Berna what do you think? > > Eric S > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > >> >> >> 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 >> > > -- Bernadette Farias Lóscio Centro de Informática Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 20:23:09 UTC