Re: vocabs and issue 166

Hi Phil,

I'm afraid this distinction won't work. As I wrote earlier:
- "Reuse vocabularies" is also for data values (e.g SKOS concept schemes)
- "Use standardized terms" may actually also be for fields.

Maybe the essence of the BPs would be more obvious with counter-examples:
- a standard list of fields can be implemented in two separate ontologies (this actually happened for a while in the museum domain with a model called CIDOC-CRM having two implementations), a case that doesn't really comply with the first BP.
- a vocabulary like FOAF has been widely re-used (so being a great example of the first BP) without it having a formal standard status (especially at the beginning, it was very informal)

Now we may want to ignore this. But in this case I'd be even in favour of grouping the two BP in one about 're-use vocabularies, even better, standardized ones'. But that wouldn't please the people who argued about spliting the BPs because they wanted to point that a standard could be re-used for every word or code in the data, not just for these artefacts that gathers resources that have URIs (the case of the vocabularies you and I think of usually). I.e. refer to levels of standardization that are not connected to using OWL and SKOS (because this is technoology-biased, you see).


On 19/04/16 10:55, Phil Archer wrote:
> 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.
> Phil.
> 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

Received on Thursday, 21 April 2016 07:20:58 UTC