- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:26:05 -0700
- To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <56E72C6D.4030401@lbl.gov>
I think every BP should have a title that clearly distinguishes it from
the other BPs. The two titles for 16 and 17 read to me like the same
idea. The description should make the distinction even more clear. It's
a little better thanks to Antoine's help, but I don't think most people
who have not been part of the group's discussion will see the difference
from the current text.
-Annette
On 3/14/16 9:46 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
> Hi Annette and Antoine,
>
> Thanks a lot for your comments about these BP!
>
> @Antoine, thanks a lot for your work on improving this!
>
> @Annette, would like us to make more changes on these BP or the
> proposal of Antoine is ok [1][2]?
>
> Cheers,
> Bernasdette
>
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MetadataStandardized
> [2] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ReuseVocabularies
>
> 2016-03-13 23:31 GMT+01:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl
> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>>:
>
> Hi Annette,
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> For your suggestion, I'm afraid that this is not as simple as
> this. I wish it was, but:
> - "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)
>
> Antoine
>
>
> On 3/13/16 8:16 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
>
> I think this helps a lot. I do still wonder how clear the
> distinction would be to someone not already familiar with
> things like Dublin Core. Would it be reasonable to say "Use
> shared vocabularies for field names" and then "Use
> standardized terms for data values"?
> -Annette
>
> Sent from a keyboard-challenged device
>
> On Mar 13, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Antoine Isaac
> <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Here is my suggested updates for BP 16 and 17 (Use
> standardized terms, Reuse vocabularies). Focus was on the
> intended outcome of BP "Reuse vocabularies" and trying to
> make a bit clearer the difference between the BPs. It's at
> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/320
>
> Is it better now?
>
> Note to editors: in the process I've updated links from
> these BPs to Requirements and Benefits (the icons) so,
> please check that the other parts of the document that
> keep track of cross-links are up-to-date!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> On 3/12/16 11:00 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Annette,
>
> BP16 is purely about standardization of terms (just
> using words or codes being used elsewhere). BP17 is
> more about re-using artefacts already built, which can
> be re-used to express knowledge as such (XMLSchema,
> OWL ontologies, SKOS concept schemes).
> There's also a difference of consensus: 'standardized'
> is quite formal, top-down, 'shared' is more bottom-up.
>
> We already had the discussion at this issue:
> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/166
>
> Frankly at the beginning there was just one: "Best
> Practice 18: Re-use vocabularies"
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150224/#dataVocabularies
>
> Then a new one ("Best Practice 15: Use standardized
> terms") was introduced in front of all others, without
> caring too much about the others:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150625/#MetadataStandardized
>
> I seem to remember some in the group dearly wanted to
> see the words 'standardized' and 'code lists' flashing
> at the top. And didn't like my suggestion to merge the
> two BPs:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Aug/0083.html
>
> These were the final resolution:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Sep/0027.html
> It was even worse because the resolution then forced
> be to introduce the word 'term' in the BP about
> re-using vocabularies (as engineered artefacts)
> creating confusing with the BP that was recommending
> to use anything standardized.
> I've tried to express the distinction as I could,
> because I also felt it was not clear. But one cannot
> turn lead into gold, it seems.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> On 3/11/16 8:10 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
> I think the real problem here is that BPs 16 and
> 17 are really saying the same thing in slightly
> different ways. It seems to me that at one point
> we had them as separate ideas, and I think maybe
> one was supposed to be about being internally
> consistent in your naming of things, and the other
> was about using standard vocabularies, so being
> externally consistent, but they seem to have
> wandered together over time. I wonder if someone
> more familiar with these two BPs (Antoine?) could
> take a look and tease them apart, or combine them
> into one. I find it odd that we have two BPs to
> handle a subtle difference in ways of reusing
> vocabularies, but one of them also extends as far
> as to cover a shared data model. If one can be
> that general, we don't really need both at all, IMHO.
> -Annette
>
> On 3/11/16 6:33 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Bernadette,
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
> OK I will submit a proposal.
> Maybe directly as a pull request.
>
> Antoine
>
> On 3/11/16 4:52 AM, Bernadette Farias
> Lóscio wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
>
> Thanks for your message! I reviewed BP17:
> Reuse Vocabularies and I agree with you
> that the two outcomes that you mentioned
> are confused. Maybe, we can keep just the
> first one.
>
> Could you please help us to make a
> proposal for the intended outcome of BP 17?
>
> Feel free to use the constructions from
> your choice. It is just important to keep
> in mind that we should be able to test the BP.
>
> kind regards,
> Bernadette
>
> 2016-03-03 18:49 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac
> <aisaac@few.vu.nl
> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>
> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl
> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>>>:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've done my action on suggesting
> examples for BP17 "Reuse vocabularies" [1]
> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/307
>
> In the process I became stuck again
> with the intended outcomes. It had already
> flagged it some time ago [2]. At the time
> the discussion had focused on the
> editorial points. But now it's really
> about whether these intended outcomes
> should be in this BP or elsewhere, or
> actually whether they make sense at all!
>
> 1. I'm really not sure whether these
> two outcomes should be specific to
> BP17"Reuse vocabularies":
> [
> It should be possible for machines to
> automatically process the data within a
> dataset.
> It should be possible for machines to
> automatically process the metadata that
> describes a dataset.
> ]
> I.e. for me these are more intended
> outcomes of machine-readable data and
> metadata in general not specific to
> reusing vocabularies. In fact it we think
> they make sense for BP17 then I think we
> should add them to BP16 "Use standardized
> terms' and many other BPs. Standardized
> lists of codes and terms also help
> machines to automatically process data.
>
> 2. The first intended outcome look
> more specific to vocabularies:
> [
> It should be possible to automatically
> compare two or more datasets when they use
> the same vocabulary to describe metadata.
> ]
> But I also think it should be both in
> BP16 and BP17... And this intended outcome
> is confusingly written for me:
> 1. When two datasets use the same
> vocabulary, it just *is* possible to
> compare them. This is much stronger than
> what the sentence 'it should be possible
> to compare them' hints at. This reads poorly.
> 2. This sentence alludes to a
> situation where 'datasets use the same
> vocabulary to describe metadata'. Datasets
> here describe metadata? Like, datasets of
> meta-metadata? This exists, but I'm fairly
> sure this is not what was meant. Couldn't
> we just simplify and remove ' to describe
> metadata'?
>
> By the way I noticed that now a lot of
> intended outcome don't start with 'it
> should be possible' anymore. If it's not
> mandatory, I'd like very much to get read
> of this construction in the vocabulary
> best practices.
>
> Best,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1]
> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVocabularies
> [2]
> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/211
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE,
> Brazil
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Monday, 14 March 2016 21:26:41 UTC