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

Re: My review of the DWBP 21st Jan editor's draft

From: Carlos Iglesias <contact@carlosiglesias.es>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:48:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAa1Xzn2KO078iMCD7mS8=Gs6tR475u7ep5EHDuAh6vK1rdCUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Antoine,

My main point against using "data vocabularies" is precisely that IMO it is
a sort of jargon that is also too much associated with a specific set of
technologies (i.e. SW/LD) and quite unknown outside that world. So in the
shake of the general technological neutrality of the document (outside
implementation sections) and for better understanding for a general public
I was suggesting "data model" instead, although clearly not perfect still I
agree. I'm also open to any other suggestion that may be considered also as
more technologically neutral and globally adopted than the current one.

Best,
 CI

On 22 January 2015 at 00:32, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi Carlos,
>
> Quickly reacting to this one:
>
>
>  (should replace "data vocabularies" for "data models" everywhere)
>> [...]
>> DATA VOCABULARIES
>>
>> - Should be called data models or anything else more neutral (also for
>> all BPs titles and descriptions in this section possibly with the only
>> exception of implementation sections)
>> - Get rid off (or move to another more apropriated place) all the
>> introductory vocabularies, ontologies and skos stuff as it is not
>> technology neutral at all
>>
>>
>
> I wish we could call everything 'data models' or anything more precise
> than 'vocabulary'. The problem is that to my great dismay many people use
> the 'vocabulary' word for different kinds of beast. An OWL schema is not a
> SKOS concept scheme; the distinction is really important in Linked Data
> world. And it exists in other technologies: an XML schema or a relational
> model is quite different from a code list used in XML files or relational
> tables.
> Bottom line, I believe that resources like the Getty Art and Architecture
> thesaurus [1] or the ISO 639 language codes [2] cannot qualify as data
> models. They're just values to be used in data (even if many data models do
> express constraints that are based on what such lists contain).
>
> I have tried to write the long intro in the vocabulary section to express
> this. It seems I've failed :-( (and I did try to enhance a text that Ig had
> produced, which also tried to reflect this)
> Actually it's really difficult once W3C itself contributes to the
> terminological quagmire by using the same word for everything [3]. And whe,
> actually (and to be fair to our colleagues) the border can be fuzzy, and
> when undoubtedly many best practices do apply across the spectrum (it's
> good to re-use data models *and* code lists!).
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATHierarchy?find=&logic=AND&
> note=&english=N&subjectid=300000000
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639-1
> [3] http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology
>
>


-- 
---

Carlos Iglesias.
Internet & Web Consultant.
+34 687 917 759
contact@carlosiglesias.es
@carlosiglesias
http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2015 23:48:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:31 UTC