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

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

From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 09:46:07 +0000
To: "Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park)" <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au>, "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0e4c045315294c5587bf3da99b869a05@dnb.de>
+1 for vocabulary

/Lars

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) [mailto:Nicholas.Car@csiro.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 7:38 AM
> 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 09:46:31 UTC

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