Re: Remove the Data Vocabularies section from the DWBP document

Hi Bernadette,

I have talked too fast about the scope of the section. Actually I do use these best practices as criteria to re-use vocabularies when I create data, and have to work out the vocabularies to express it. So it's a bit of mixture between creation and re-use...

But now I'd like to make general points now.
I am *really* surprised the suggestion to remove the section comes now and is supported by so many people.

These best practices have been deemed in scope earlier, by all the group. We have added them after much painful discussion and editing work.


First, we had discussions on the relation with the LD BPs. In the end we agreed that the LD BPs were not an official recommendation, and they were specific to the LD world, too specific for our (hopefully more general) audience. And that therefore it made sense to 'embed' them in our own recommendations, giving room for us to adapt/re-word them if necessary. Yes, there is some redundancy, but that's part of the game. Actually if we remove the section, we will still need a lot of text to present the references to the LD BPs in a useful way. I'm convinced in the end we'll just have wasted our time if we go this way.


Second, we also discussed about redundancy between our BPs, as early as the UC phase in phase. Don't you remember when we made the requirements tables, and discussed that some requirements subsumed others, and how we decide to remove some and keep others?
As a matter of fact we had decided to keep requirements on vocs because we felt this was an area that was important, and for which specific BPs would be needed. Saying as BP1 "provide metadata" alone is not really helpful for the practitioners we're targeting. So we kept the requirements, and because the requirements are in we need some best practices for meeting them.

This is the same approach we took for a.o licenses and provenance. Technically these are metadata, but we decided to mention them specifically. If we follow the thread started now, then we could remove all requirements about licenses, provenance etc.


The only 'real' redundancy I would heartily agree with is between BP3 and the vocabulary BPs. But we could mark an issue to solve it later. In fact I believe the requirement that led to it (R-MetadataStandardized) needs more than standard terms/vocabularies. There's also format for the data elements (like ISO date format), which should be included.

Antoine

On 5/13/15 5:40 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thursday, 14 May 2015 09:49:39 UTC