Re: Remove the Data Vocabularies section from the DWBP document

Hi all,

Thanks a lot for the feedback!

@Eric, I fully agree with you! IMO, vocabularies creation is a subject that
should have its own note or document (we already have).

@Antoine, I understand that we have requirements in the UC documents
related to the data vocabularies, however I don't think that we need to
cover all the requirements that were extracted from the use cases (some of
them are just out of scope). Previously, we agreed to cover the
requirements for data vocabularies in the BP document, however reviewing
the document as a whole, IMO creation of vocabularies is not in our scope.
I also think that this is part of the creation process: as the document
evolves and the group gets more mature, we should be able to change
previous opinions/decisions.

However, I agree that it is really  important to talk about data
vocabularies and I'd like to make a proposal:

1. To keep the data vocabularies section, but to keep just BP related with
vocabularies reuse. We already have "BP: Re-use vocabularies" and new ones
may also be included when necessary.
2. To remove "BP: Use standard terms to define metadata" from the metadata
section and to include the "BP: Use standardized terms". The "BP:Use
standard terms" may be merged with the "BP: Re-use vocabularies".

Please, let me know what do you think.

Cheers,
Bernadette

2015-05-15 13:50 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>:

> Antoine and all,
>
> The reason why I +1 the removal of the section is that the best practices
> have already been largely recorded elsewhere.   I like the material written
> in the vocab section, but if it is described in more detail elsewhere, then
> I'd prefer having a reference to the more detailed material.  I believe you
> mentioned the elimination of the provenance section because the same
> rationale.  I agree, in fact as I was writing the provenance section I kept
> thinking there is a wealth of documentation that the W3C PROV group has
> already provided and that what was written was really not insight, but a
> reference.
>
> I believe Phil mentioned in this thread rather than removing the mention
> of vocabularies entirely we instead have references of where people can go
> for guidance (with possible amendments for broader Open Data).
>
> If the argument is for the vocabulary section to be retained, I would need
> to hear how it is completely distinct from what was previously written by
> other groups to change my vote.
>
> Eric S.
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> I've mentioned it once or twice. See, for example, my email to the group
>> on January 21.
>> -Annette
>>
>> On May 15, 2015, at 1:41 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>> > Interesting. Have you made a formal suggestion about it while we were
>> writing?
>> >
>> > Antoine
>> >
>> > On 5/14/15 8:00 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
>> >> not so. I have always held that they are out of scope.
>> >> --
>> >> Annette Greiner
>> >> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>> >> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>> >> 510-495-2935
>> >>
>> >> On May 14, 2015, at 2:49 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:
>> aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Bernadette,
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> These best practices have been deemed in scope earlier, by all the
>> group.
>>
>>
>>
>


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