Re: Suggestions for ACTION-227: Work with eric s on writing section on evolution of duv wrt reuse of namespaces etc.

Hi Antoine, all, 

I thought this should be more specific to modeling decisions of DUV. Maybe I am wrong here since I’m also missing the context of the action. 
I really like the first part of your statement that I copy here

[ 

> Since the beginning, the Data Usage Vocabulary developed by the DWBP working group has re-used existing vocabularies as much as possible, following <a href="#ReuseVocabularies">Best Practice 17: Reuse vocabularies</a>. However, some initial choices of classes and properties has been revised over the course of vocabulary design. For example @@Class1@@ has been replaced by @@Class2@@ and @@prop1@@ has been replaced by @@prop2@@

]

 as it points out 2 things: 
   1- A relation to an existing BP, here BP 17
   2- Some modeling decisions…why class X from domain X is preferred instead of class Y from domain Y.

However, the second part is more generic and could be a BP on criteria to reuse vocabularies, part of [1] as referenced in BP 17. 
Maybe to be specific to DUV, we can point here why class X  was preferred to class Y, based on the general criteria you perfectly mention in the second part of your proposal. 

So, we could add the reasons directly of the choices, and to follow on your idea, something like:

[
For example @@Class1@@ has been replaced by @@Class2@@ because the namespace at {domain X} benefits from solid technical guarantees compared  
@@prop1@@ has been replaced by @@prop2@@ because the vocab was created by practitioners from the industry 
]

WDYT?

Cheers,
Ghislain

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#VOCABULARIES <https://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#VOCABULARIES> 

> Le 17 mars 2016 à 09:55, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> a écrit :
> 
> Hi Eric, everyone,
> 
> Here's a first suggestion for a paragraph on evolution of duv wrt reuse of namespaces etc.
> We could add it in one of the vocabulary BPs.
> I'm actually unsure now what was the original context for the action.
> Please tell me if this is alright!
> 
> And if you could fill the blanks for the example it would be very helpful too as I'm now leaving for a trip...
> 
> [
> Since the beginning, the Data Usage Vocabulary developed by the DWBP working group has re-used existing vocabularies as much as possible, following <a href="#ReuseVocabularies">Best Practice 17: Reuse vocabularies</a>. However, some initial choices of classes and properties has been revised over the course of vocabulary design. For example @@Class1@@ has been replaced by @@Class2@@ and @@prop1@@ has been replaced by @@prop2@@. While the constructs initially chosen had appropriate semantics, some external factors had to be considered. Especially, vocabularies that have been created and by large groups or consortia and that benefit from their constant stewardship are more authoritative that vocabularies maintained by only by one person. Vocabularies created by practitioners from the industry are likely to be less subject to change than artefacts created by researchers. A vocabulary hosted on a W3C namespace, like DCAT, PROV or SKOS, benefits from solid technical guarantees of persistenc
> e, as opposed to a vocabulary hosted on a project's internet domain.
> ]
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> 
> On 2/5/16 3:27 PM, Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> dwbp-ACTION-227: Work with eric s on writing section on evolution of duv wrt reuse of namespaces etc.
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/227
>> 
>> Assigned to: Antoine Isaac
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>