Re: BP - BP14 reuse vocabularies

Hi again Antoine, don't declare victory yet :)


On 22 January 2015 at 00:03, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I have noticed that someone has edited the section on data vocabularies:
> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVocabularies
>
> I could not follow who edited the updates, so I'm sending to everyone...
>

It was me indeed completing the missing parts. Sorry for not coordinating
with you but have also no idea about who was working on that, just got some
pending tasks for the list and was working on them.


First reaction: it's great, because now clearly some BPs that were once
> questioned by the editors of the document, are not questionable any more, I
> think! Especially BP 14: Reuse vocabularies.
>

As you can also say. It is also me the same who is questioning some of this
BPs as well :)


I've got a couple of remarks on this one though:
>
> 1. The following criteria are present
> [
> Activity and maintenance: the vocabulary should be actively maintained,
> and offer a clear policy to collect feedback and perform updates.
> Quality of publication: the vocabularies must have an associated
> sufficient documentation to be able to interpret the meaning of the
> concepts defined therein in a unambiguous way. In addition, vocabularies
> that are designed and published under the Linked Data paradigm will offer
> enhanced reusability.
> ]
> It strikes me that these are actually the previous BPs that we recommend:
> 11, 12, 13. Could we make this explicit, rather than re-define the BPs?
> (it actually would make a lot sense for a BP which is about avoiding to
> re-define stuff ;-) )
>

Ok for quality, a different business for activity and maintenance I think.
Current BPs only cover versioning, and that's not the same as ensuring
active maintenance.

2. The "how to test" part lists repositories and search tools that seem to
> be dead (vocab.org), of uncertain status (TONES) or just not repositories
> at all (Wordnet).
> Actually the BP section has a section "How to find vocabularies ?" which
> has many of the links, and only the ones that work. We could just refer to
> it from the BP, or just fold the sub-section into BP 14.
>

Yes, I think it need some clean-up and extension (not only SW vocabs but
also other repositories for "data models") In a different mail I have
already expressed my opinion in favor of the later of your options as well.



> Also, I'd recommend to remove GeoNames from the BP; it's arguable whether
> it's a vocabulary. And someone is very unlikely to embark on re-defining
> GeoNames. The link to the eGov Core voc
> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/core_vocabularies/description
> doesn't work.
>

Without any oficial reference definition of what a vocabulary is everything
is quite arguable, but i'm not against the removal at all.

Best,
 CI.