Re: Remove the Data Vocabularies section from the DWBP document

Hello Antoine,

Please, find below the list of BP for Data Vocabularies and a brief
explanation why IMO they are out of the scope of the DWBP document.

Best Practice 14: Document vocabularies: this BP discusses how to document
vocabularies instead of how to reuse vocabularies (There is also a
redundancy between this BP and  Best Practice 1: Provide metadata).

Best Practice 15: Share vocabularies in an open way: this best practice
concerns how to share vocabularies instead of how to reuse them.

Best Practice 16: Vocabulary versioning: this BP concerns how to identify
changes to a vocabulary over time instead of how to reuse vocabularies
(There is a BP that deals with dataset versioning - Best Practice 8:
Provide versioning information).

Best Practice 17: Re-use vocabularies: IMO this is the only BP that
concerns the reuse of vocabularies. However, there is a redundancy between
this and Best Practice 2: Use standard terms to define metadata

Best Practice 18: Choose the right formalization level: again this BP
concerns vocabularies creation instead of reuse of vocabularies.

kind regards,
Bernadette

2015-05-13 11:31 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

> -1.
>
> If there are redundancies between the MD BD and the Voc BP, then maybe
> it's not a good sign for the MD BP themselves. They've probably be scoped
> too widely... But what are precisely the redundancies you've spotted? We
> probably need to know more.
>
> Second, I don't have a strong objection refering to the W3C Best Practices
> for Publishing Linked Data.
> But we already reached the conclusion that there was value reprising those
> BPs because (1) that LD BPS were not an official W3C rec and (2) this was
> an opportunity to write BP that would be less technically biased. I don't
> see why we'd revisit this position, while it already had costed us enough
> discussion time last year. Especially I wouldn't be ready to revisit this
> position based on the fact that some other part of the document would be
> redundant. That's not the right reason.
>
> Antoine
>
>
> On 5/13/15 2:58 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On 13/05/2015 14:25, yaso@nic.br wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed, Berna
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On 05/13/2015 10:06 AM, Eric Stephan wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Eric S
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <
>>>> bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to propose to remove the Data Vocabularies section from the
>>>>> DWBP
>>>>> document. After reviewing the document, I believe that there is a lot
>>>>> of
>>>>> redundancy between the BP for data vocabularies and BP for metadata.
>>>>> Besides, IMO the creation of vocabularies is not in the scope of the
>>>>> document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of having a section for data vocabularies, we may refer to The
>>>>> Standard Vocabularies section of the W3C Best Practices for Publishing
>>>>> Linked Data.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Bernadette
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>>>>> Centro de Informática
>>>>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


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