Re: ISSUE-28: Is a vocabulary 5-star? [Best Practices]

Hi Boris,

Do you still want to discuss the multilingual issues before the release of 
the FPWD ? 
The coming three weeks I'm extremely time constrained, I probably have to 
regret for the Telco as well.

Bart



From:   Boris Villazon-Terrazas <bvillazon@fi.upm.es>
To:     Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
Cc:     Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>, Government 
Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas 
<michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date:   15-02-2012 19:48
Subject:        Re: ISSUE-28: Is a vocabulary 5-star? [Best Practices]



Hi all

Thanks Bernadette for your recommendations …. ;)

Boris

On Feb 10, 2012, at 7:40 PM, Bernadette Hyland wrote:

Hi,
Thanks for updating BP Vocab Checklist wiki page. 

We're writing this for an audience who may or may not be able to assess 
qualitative statements like "good use of".  What makes "good use?"  If 
you're new to LOD, you may have no idea.  Rather than posing an 
interrogative (a question), tell them what is a best practice and explain 
why it matters.  Show an example.

Consider reviewing a W3C Recommendation format that is a good "template". 
It gives short, succinct best practices in a way that is easily 
"digestible".[1]  If others have better examples, we're totally open. Some 
degree of consistency between current W3C recommendations is desirable 
IMO.

For example, in the current vocab selection checklist [2] you write:
 Are they good use of rdfs:label and rdfs:comment? 
The vocabulary should be self-descriptive. Each Class and Property should 
have a label and comments associated.


Consider:
---------%<-------

1.1 Vocabularies should be self-descriptive.

1.1.1 What it means

Each property or term in a vocabulary should have a Label, Definition and 
Comment defined.

Self-describing data suggests that information about the encodings used 
for each representation is provided explicitly within the representation. 
The ability for Linked Data to describe itself, to place itself in 
context, contributes to the usefulness of the underlying data. 

For example, popular vocabulary called DCMI Metadata Terms has a Term Name 
Contributor http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-contributor 
which has a:

Label: Contributor
Definition: An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Comment: Examples of a Contributor include a person, an organization, or a 
service.

<further description as needed ...>

----------

Thus, my recommendation is:
1) Best practices are listed up front as declarative statements. 
2) All have a "What it means" and short explanation and example, if 
possible.
3) We consider using the mobile web rec as our "template" format.
4) The authors of the wiki page(s) make the changes so the editors don't 
have so much to do that it become impossible for three people.  TIA.

Cheers,
Bernadette Hyland

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-mwabp-20101214/

[2] 
http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/222_Best_Practices_for_Vocab_Selection#Vocabulary_Selection_Criteria_checklist



On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:

Thanks Michael!!

See BERNARD VATANT's great post at:

http://blog.hubjects.com/2012/02/is-your-linked-data-vocabulary-5-star_9588.html


Many of the ideas behind are very closed to what we discussed at DERI 
during the F2F2 and available also in our wiki in the vocab selection 
checklist[1].

We can maybe provide a small service that gives "stars" to vocabs...I 
guess it is similar to the ideas of our last telecon to provide a kind of 
form or something equivalent.

Best,
Ghislain
[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/222_Best_Practices_for_Vocab_Selection#Vocabulary_Selection_Criteria_checklist


-- 
Ghislain Atemezing
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr & ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8178
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin