W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > September 2015

Re: dwbp-ISSUE-166: Should the data vocabularies section be removed? [Best practices document(s)]

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:10:10 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1Pzwx0XTcin5L+DdgO2Cj9_kV7csTQVU-pdHCnqb2TT6XwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Antoine,

Thanks! I agree that we should vote for this during the F2F or in the next
call. In the following, I tried to summarize our discussion in order to
make it easier to make a proposal. Please, feel free to complement or
adjust.


- Should we keep BP16, BP17 and BP18 that refer to vocabularies publication?
If we're gonna keep them, then the introduction of the section should be
reviewed to make it more clear that BP deal with data vocabularies reuse
and publication.

- Should we keep BP20? If we're gonna keep BP20, then the description
should be rewriteen to remove the word creating: "When creating or re-using
a vocabulary for an application, a data publisher should opt for a level of
formal semantics that fit data and applications."

- Concerning BP15, I propose to keep like this and to move it to  the
metadata section.

IMO, it's possible to keep these BP with the proposed updates.

Cheers,
Bernadette

2015-08-14 11:44 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

> Hi Bernadette,
>
>
>
>>
>>     Actually the word 'create' appears only once in the BPs: in BP 20.
>> And there, it appears next to 're-use' and honestly I'd be more than ok
>> keeping only the 're-use' word in this BP.
>>
>>
>> Maybe BP20 can be mixed with BP19. IMO it would be better to provide
>> guidance on how to choose an existing vocabulary instead of how to choose
>> the right formalization level when creating a new one.
>>
>
>
> Note again that BP20 is about creating *and* re-using, so if we just
> remove the word "create" from there, then it's just about re-using vocs.
> Wouldn't this be simpler than trying a full merge?
> NB: I'm not against it, see below. But I'm trying to be realistic at our
> use of resource: there's a lot of people to have discussions, but few (and
> I feel it becomes fewer) to implement things afterwards. So we need a good
> case.
>
>
>
>>     About BP 15 vs BP 19: in BP 15 'terms' refers to words in human
>> language (well, I think - I was not the one writing this one). The other
>> practices (BP 16-19) focus rather on the 'technical' resources (OWL classes
>> and properties, SKOS concepts) that we construct. These artificial
>> resources are the first-class citizens of the 'vocabularies' (OWL
>> ontologies, SKOS concept schemes) defined in the intro of the section.
>>
>>     I think (again, to take with a pinch of salt) that BP 15 and BP19
>> reflect that there are many levels of interoperability/comparability: one
>> rather technical (BP19) and one that rather focuses on explicitly grounding
>> 'soft' semantics in the practices of given organizations or applications
>> (BP15).
>>
>>
>> I agree!
>>
>>
>>     The problem is that we won't ever be able to have a crystal clear
>> formulation because:
>>     - 'term' is really the right notion to refer to the words and
>> meanings as vehicled by natural languages [1]
>>     - many people use 'terms' to refer to OWL classes and properties [2]
>>     - natural language terms appear in the (artificial/technical/web)
>> 'vocabularies' as the labels of the classes, properties, concepts that are
>> in these vocabularies.
>>
>>
>> Maybe, instead of "Use standardized terms" it should be use "Use existing
>> vocabularies or standards to describe metadata". In this case, a vocabulary
>> provides definitions for terms and a standardized term will be a term
>> defined by an existing or standard. This is just an initial thought that
>> needs to be refined :)
>>
>>
>
>
> Are you suggesting this for BP15? But then we blur the difference between
> BP15 and BP19, if in both we use "vocabularies" in a way that hints at the
> 'formal' vocabularies (OWL, XML Schemas).
>
> Unless we're considering a big "re-use vocabularies" best practice, which
> would in general advocate the re-use of existing classes and properties,
> and in the detail advocate to pick these vocabularies with a right
> formalization level (current BP20) and 'semantically grounded' in the right
> terminologies.
>
> This could work. But is it a level of granularity people would be happy
> with?
>
> Maybe this can be suggested for a vote in a coming call or at the F2F.
> Again, keeping in mind the editorial resources at hand, svp.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
>
>
>
>>     [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology
>>     [2] http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology
>>
>>     On 7/29/15 12:31 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
>>
>>         Hi all,
>>
>>         In May we started a discussion about the Data Vocabularies
>> section [1] and we couldn't reach a consensus [2]. It is really important
>> that we come back to this discussion and reach consensus before the next
>> DWBP draft's publication.
>>
>>         I still think that the creation of vocabularies is out of the
>> scope of the document. However, BP16(Document vocabularies), BP17(Share
>> vocabularies in an open way) and BP18(Vocabulary versioning) are more
>> related to the publication of vocabularies than to the creation. In this
>> case, maybe we could keep these BP and change a little bit the introduction
>> of the section to say that BP are related just to the usage and publication
>> of vocabularies. Then, in this case BP20(Choose the right formalization
>> level) should be removed.
>>
>>         I also want to discuss the relationship between BP15(Use
>> standardized terms) and BP19(Re-use vocabularies). I am not sure if we
>> should talk about the use of standardized terms or the re-use of
>> vocabularies or both. If we won't discuss the creation of vocabularies then
>> maybe BP-19 should also be removed.
>>
>>         Looking forward to your comments!
>>
>>         Thanks!
>>         Bernadette
>>
>>         [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150625/#dataVocabularies
>>         [2]
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015May/0038.html
>>
>>         2015-05-21 11:15 GMT-03:00 Data on the Web Best Practices Working
>> Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:
>> sysbot%2Btracker@w3.org> <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:
>> sysbot%2Btracker@w3.org>>>:
>>
>>              dwbp-ISSUE-166: Should the data vocabularies section be
>> removed? [Best practices document(s)]
>>
>>         http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/166
>>
>>              Raised by: Bernadette Farias Loscio
>>              On product: Best practices document(s)
>>
>>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015May/0038.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         --
>>         Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>>         Centro de Informática
>>         Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 Monday, 14 September 2015 14:11:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:41 UTC