Re: Remove the Data Vocabularies section from the DWBP document

Dear Bernadette and All,

What if there is no established data format or vocabulary for some domain
which can be used to represent data in that domain? Š so I don¹t think we
should restrict ourselves to talking about reusing an existing vocabulary,
as is may be necessary to create a vocabulary in order to publish data.

Regards,
João Paulo



From:  Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date:  Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 1:40 PM
To:  Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc:  "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Remove the Data Vocabularies section from the DWBP document
Resent-From:  <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 13 May 2015 16:41:06 +0000

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------