W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > February 2019

RE: PROF: Ontology v. Vocabulary v. X?

From: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 09:29:08 +0100
To: "'Car, Nicholas \(L&W, Dutton Park\)'" <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au>, <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000f01d4c2ad$06de26e0$149a74a0$@makxdekkers.com>
I'd vote for Vocabulary. Makx.

-----Original Message-----
From: Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au> 
Sent: 12 February 2019 07:38
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Subject: PROF: Ontology v. Vocabulary v. X?

Could DXWG members please express an opinion here at to whether “Profiles Ontology” or “Profiles Vocabulary” or something else is more appropriate for PROF?

After some discussion before FPWD we agree on the former but some comments about PROF’s use of terms from other namespaces, e.g. dct:conformsTo, to say nothing of owl:Class, indicate that others would prefer either the latter or something else entirely as they understand an Ontology to typically use only 1 namespace.

If DCAT was being made from scratch now with approximately the same output, what would it be called, “Dataset Vocabulary” or something else?

Short initial responses please so we can assess whether it’s important to look into this further or not.

Thanks,

Nick


Nicholas Car
Senior Experimental Scientist
CSIRO
nicholas.car@csiro.au | 0477 560 177
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2019 08:29:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:12 UTC