DUV Comments (2)

 

Hi all, 

A few more comments: 

duv:refersTo defines that the resource O in a triple "S duv:refesTo O"
is a dcat:Dataset and a dcat:Distribution. 

duv:hasUserFeedback defines that the resource S in a triple "S
duv:hasUserFeedback O" is a dcat:Dataset and a dcat:Distribution. 

duv:hasUsage defines that the resource S in a triple "S duv:hasUsage O"
is a dcat:Dataset and a dcat:Distribution. 

The domain of duv:hasUsageTool is duv:Usage. 

The property duv:classification (in the diagram) between DataCitation
and Agent does not exist.. 

The diagram has double-ended arrows that could induce someone to think
that the two properties are inverses. I think it is better two have the
two arrows. 

Maybe it will be necessary to define the disjoint classes of duv. 

Thank you. 

Cheers, Laufer 

--
. . . .. . . 
. . . ..
. .. . 

Em 16/12/2015 18:25, Eric Stephan escreveu: 

> Now if I can only add the notes without all the extra text characters that Phil has to fix we will be in business!. 
> 
> Eric S. 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br> wrote:
> 
> 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 [1]
> 
> 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 [2]
> 
> 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 [3]. 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/ [4]. 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 [5] . 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 [6]
> 
> 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/ [7]

http://philarcher.org [8]
+44 (0)7887 767755 [9]
@philarcher1 

 -- 

Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Links:
------
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#vocabulary-specification
[2] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#vocabulary-specification
[3] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html
[4] http://www.sparontologies.net/
[5] http://www.sparontologies.net/ontologies/fabio
[6]
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DUV+Comments&amp;iso=20151217T21&amp;p1=103
[7] http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
[8] http://philarcher.org
[9] tel:%2B44%20%280%297887%20767755