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

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

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:38:38 +0100
To: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <58af1a55-ca53-0743-1192-8c371bbf1e4a@few.vu.nl>
+1 for vocabulary too!

Antoine

On 12/02/2019 10:46, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> +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 16:39:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:13 UTC