- From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 11:24:44 -0300
- To: Deirdre Lee <deirdre@derilinx.com>
- Cc: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANx1PzyrVPEsSQRiWrmrgZPaV2MnGhOO1kuSVwPysUSDCXRg6g@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Deirdre,
When I sent the first message, Best Practice 14: Use standardized terms was
not part of the Data Vocabularies section. I included this BP after the
message of Ghislain.
I agree with you that Best Practice: Re-use vocabularies and Best
Practice: Use standardized terms are in-scope and the Data Vocabularies
section should remain.
IMO, BP related with the creation of vocabularies are out of scope, but not
BP related to the reuse of vocabularies to describe data or metadata.
Cheers,
Bernadette
2015-05-21 10:55 GMT-03:00 Deirdre Lee <deirdre@derilinx.com>:
> Hi,
>
> Following up on this conversation, I tend to think this section is still
> in-scope.
> In terms of 'Best Practice 14: Use standardized terms', is 'use
> standardized terms' not the exact same thing as 'use a vocabulary'. My
> understanding is a term is standardized because it is described logically
> within a vocabulary, no?
>
> Bernadette, in a previous email you wrote: "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"
>
> But vocabularies are relevant for all data, not just metadata. so for me
> these are are two important and distinct BPs. Or, if anything BP17 subsumes
> BP2, as metadata is data.
>
> Cheers,
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 20/05/2015 21:39, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>
>> Hi Bernadette, everyone,
>>
>> I am sorry: I see that there is discussion, and reckon that this is
>> useful for the group, but I just don't have enough time for it. Unless you
>> want to the DQV to be further postponed...
>>
>> Trying to react:
>>
>> I would be very careful with everything that includes 'terms'. This is an
>> even more slippery slope than the word 'vocabulary'!
>> Actually maybe a reason why Annette's comment in January ([1], is it?)
>> did not take off is it seemed to consider that 'vocabulary' ('large
>> standard vocabularies') in a quite different meaning as 'vocabulary' in the
>> proposed BP. Then people started to discuss what vocabulary were - and
>> giving more work for section 7.4 instead of declaring it out-of-scope.
>> In fact I would argue against using 'terms' whatsoever. So perhaps
>> Bernadette's suggestion to remove the "BP: Use standard terms to define
>> metadata" was going in the right direction. I'm not sure I have the time to
>> envision all the consequences of the proposed changes.
>>
>> Two additional caveats:
>> - one of the options raised the past days was to replace the voc section
>> to the LD BP. I still think making a reference both not confusing and
>> appropriate to the LD BPs will probably take a lot of time and space, not
>> resulting in any gain.
>> - scope-wise, as days pass and I'm thinking of these issues I'm having
>> more and more trouble seeing creation of vocabularies as entirely
>> out-of-scope. What if a dataset publisher cannot re-use an existing
>> vocabulary? Will you leave her without any guidance, while vocabulary
>> design is a notorious mine field? Especially considering that BPs for
>> creation of a good voc happen to be the same as BPs for selecting a
>> vocabulary to re-use. When one create a vocabulary, one should almost
>> always have re-use of this vocabulary in mind. In fact the best approaches
>> to data publication (in a LD environment at least) would require
>> mixing-and-matching existing vocabularies for shared needs with new
>> elements for specific needs. Oh, wonder, this is precisely what we do for
>> our own DUV and DQV vocabularies :-)
>>
>>
>> At the end of the day, if someone wants to have a go at re-working the
>> section, I won't oppose it of course. If someone tries something, then we
>> can see if the loss of information is productive or not. But I can't
>> guarantee I will easily accept the result, for the reasons mentioned above
>> :-/
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0185.html
>>
>> On 5/18/15 11:15 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <mailto:
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 <tel:510-495-2935>
>>> >>
>>> >> On May 14, 2015, at 2:49 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl
>>> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl> <mailto: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
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> --------------------------------------
> Deirdre Lee, Director
> Derilinx - Linked & Open Data Solutions
> Web: www.derilinx.com
> Email: deirdre@derilinx.com
> Tel: +353 (0)1 254 4316
> Mob: +353 (0)87 417 2318
> Linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/
> Twitter: @deirdrelee
>
>
>
--
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2015 14:25:33 UTC