Re: BP - BP14 reuse vocabularies

Hi Ghislain,



On 1/22/15 11:08 AM, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:
> Hi Antoine, all
> [ My 2 cents below ]
>> Le 22 janv. 2015 à 00:03, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> a écrit :
>>
>> 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).
>
> I think we have to fix the link of vocab.org <http://vocab.org> in the document. Not sure to understand why you say it’s dead.


It was really not working yesterday. Seems better today indeed.


>> 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.
>>
> +1 to fold this subsection in BP 14 and maybe add a reference from this article of D’Aquin & Natacha Noy [1] (*)
>> 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.
>
> I am not sure to understand your point here. You mean GeoNames ontology or the link provided in BP can be confusing? Also, here http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs/gn you can see that there are almost 12 vocabularies that reuse term from GeoNames vocabulary [2].


well, here the terminological confusion hit me. I understood the reference was to the GeoNames dataset itself, not the GeoNames ontology.


>> The link to the eGov Core voc
>> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/core_vocabularies/description
>> doesn't work.
>
> In the case we remove GeoNames, we can cite the W3C Geo vocabulary [3] or location vocabulary [4] for spatial domain.


Yes the W3C Geo Vocabulary seems a good idea. It would be less ambiguous an example!


> (*) I would also suggested for reusing vocabularies, this editorial paper at SWJ on “Five stars of Linked Data Vocabulary Use” http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj653.pdf. But maybe it’s more focus on LD communities!?


Yep, I can hear already the comments that we would be too much biased on LD.
It's worth keeping the reference somewhere, though. It may come handy later in the discussion.

cheers,

Antoine

Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 21:44:00 UTC