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

Re: BP - BP14 reuse vocabularies

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:58:29 +0100
Message-ID: <54C0ADA5.9090408@few.vu.nl>
To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Carlos,


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


That was not my intention, though I might desire to do so ;-)

And no problem for having edited the section without talking to me. On the contrary! I'm not claiming to be the sole editor, far from it!! It's just that I wanted to explain why I was spamming everyone.

I think we agree on all points below. I will try to fit something in before the call Friday. Unless someone wants to have a go first!

Cheers,

Antoine

>
>
> On 22 January 2015 at 00:03, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto: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 <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 <http://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 <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.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 07:59:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 22 January 2015 07:59:15 UTC