Re: vocabs and issue 166

I need to spend more time on this but I agree that at present the two 
BPs are very similar. One thing that might help distinguish them would 
be to slightly amend the first title to give us:

Use Standardized Terms & Code Lists (and make sure it's clear that this 
is  about values).

Reuse Vocabularies - this is about properties and attributes.


On 16/04/2016 16:02, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
> Hi Annette,
> Thanks again for your message and all your effort on improving the DWBP
> dpcument! Please, find my comments below.
> 2016-04-15 22:01 GMT-03:00 Annette Greiner <>:
>> Hi all,
>> While reviewing the doc, I took a look at the vocabulary BPs and I think
>> we still need to address issue 166. I'm calling this out separately from my
>> regular list of issues, because it's too complicated to cover there. We
>> discussed this in September, so I took a very careful look at the minutes
>> [1] to figure out what we agreed to do. At this point, I believe that we
>> still need to do some rewriting of BP 16. We clearly agreed to keep it, but
>> it was never rewritten to reflect what we thought it was about. Maybe this
>> is a new issue. We can make it a new one or reopen 166.
> I'd like to say that there is an open issue for this subject [2]. This
> issue was raised more recently and included in the current draft [3] to
> give us the opportunity to have more feedback from the community.
> Considering that we don't have a consensus about this in our group, it
> would be great to have more external feedback about this. But, considering
> our new schedule, I think we will need to solve this before the next draft
> publication. So, let's continue with the discussion :)
>> In short, BP 16 is still too similar to BP 15. I don't think we can
>> dismiss this issue, because people outside our group have found it
>> confusing. We, who have debated these issues, are biased to believe it is
>> clear. Moreover, even though I've been part of the discussions, I still
>> think it is unclear. I think the problem is that it was originally about
>> how to write a new formal vocabulary, but we ruled that out of scope. It
>> got rewritten at some point before the September discussion, but not in a
>> way that clearly describes a separate BP for publishing datasets.
> I think BP 15 and BP16 were rewritten after our F2F meeting in September
> according the resolutions that were taken. However, as you said, it seems
> that differences between them are still not clear.
> IMHO I don't think they are confusing, because BP15 concerns data values
> and BP16 concerns attributes. But, it is important to know the opinion of
> other members as well.
> We resolved two things about this pair of BPs:
>> RESOLVED: That Use Standardized Terms be amended to refer to code lists
>> and other commonly used terms.
>> RESOLVED: That Re-use vocabularies be retained but that it should refer to
>> 'terms or attributes' to broaden the acceptance beyond the LD community
> The resolutions made on September were implemented in the draft [3].
> BP 15 explicitly refers to code lists and other commonly used terms: "Using
> standardized lists of codes other commonly used terms for data and metadata
> values as much as possible helps avoiding ambiguity and clashes between
> these values."
> The introduction of the Vocab section was rewritten to include "terms or
> attributes" and it says:  "According to W3C, vocabularies
> <> define the concepts and
> relationships (also referred to as “terms” or “attributes”) used to
> describe and represent an area of concern. "
>> Looking carefully over the minutes of that discussion, I see we were
>> talking about how the vocabs section could be amended to be about
>> publishing rather than creation of new formal vocabularies. We agreed that
>> the standardized terms BP should be about code lists, informal terms,
>> community standards, as well as terms from more formal vocabularies,
>> including reusing vocabs. My impression is that we all understood the
>> intent on this one clearly and agreed that it was right.
>> For the reuse vocabs BP, we agreed that the word "vocabulary" should be
>> defined as a set of attributes. This was about the case when the publisher
>> needs to create an informal vocabulary of their own. We kept it because
>> that's part of the task of publishing and should be included in order for
>> the data to be understandable.  Some of us liked the word "attributes" to
>> describe what an informal vocabulary contains rather than "terms". In the
>> discussion, Max suggested the definition of vocabs in the *intro* be
>> amended to include 'terms or attributes', but the proposal got written to
>> say that the BP should be modified to refer to terms or attributes (and
>> that's all). So there was never a proposal (accepted or rejected) to
>> rewrite and clarify the intent we agreed on for what is now BP16.
> I think  the proposal to clarify the intent of BP was through the
> clarification of the meaning of vocabulary, which was done in the
> introduction (based on the resolution). So, there was a proposal and a
> resolution was also implemented. However, I understood  you don't agree
> with the final result. In this case, it would be great if you have a new
> proposal of how to solve this issue. I think our discussion can be more
> productive if we have something more concrete to discuss.
> Thanks a lot!
> Bernadette
> [2]
> [3]
>> [1] See discussion at
>> --
>> Annette Greiner
>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
+44 (0)7887 767755

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2016 08:56:01 UTC