- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:02:27 +0100
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- CC: Public GLD WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
On 26/09/2012 22:14, Michael Hausenblas wrote: > All, > >> RE: People Vocab - while admittedly very important, there is precedent for handling people (via foaf and vCard). Perhaps they are quite unsatisfactory from an international perspective, I don't have necessary expertise to comment. There are several other vocabs actively addressing this: ISA Core Person, Schema.org, others. >> >> Does it make sense to leave it to others?? Did I just commit a cardinal sin saying that out loud?? > > There is no such thing like saying something true aloud. It's all about 'Doing The Right Thing' © ... > > So, very well, concerning the People vocabulary, here is a concrete proposal: > > [[ > > PROPOSAL: The GLD WG considers http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-people/ in its current shape, that is, the FPWD from 05 April 2012 not fit for purpose (modulo the UCR section). Rather than continuing the current route, the WG adopts the relevant terms to describe people from Schema.org and to address the UCR, where terms are missing in Schema.org, an extension MAY be proposed to the Schema.org consortium. For other, relevant vocabularies, such as FOAF, vCard, ISA Core, the People vocabulary MUST define canonical, normative mappings. > > ]] -1 as currently written but I agree with the general thrust. We're being driven by lack of resources so we need to find a short-cut out of here but not one that's going to upset people, or that closes the door to future work. After we'd 'finished' work on ISA Person core, there as a significant thread asking for it to be extended to include roles, which the People vocab begins to cover. Just yesterday I had a chat with Paul Davidson (a UK gov standards person who Brits will know) and, whilst it would be premature to discuss any outcome from that conversation, I can foresee future work that might well include exactly the kind of relationship terms the the People vocab brings up (and more). Also, I hate mappings. If A === B, OK, but it's rarely the case. There's usually some sort of difference. This is true of people. Take the example in the doc currently: <http://data.sccgov.org/people/björkg> rdf:type foaf:Person ; foaf:name "Björk Guðmundsdóttir" . In the ISA Person we'd say: <http://data.sccgov.org/people/björkg> rdf:type person:Person ; foaf:name "Björk Guðmundsdóttir" ; foaf:givenName: "Bjork" ; person:patronymicName "Guðmundsdóttir" . person:Person is a sub class of both foaf:Person and schema:Person because the latter two include fictitious people - not particularly relevant to public sector data exchange. ISA also includes a term for patronymic name that, by chance, is relevant to your example. So what would we provide as a normative mapping? The reason ISA created person:patronymic name is precisely because there is no equivalent or near equivalent to map to! Finally, W3C and the WG chairs made a commitment to the European Commission that we would, in some way, publish the ISA Person Core Vocabulary in w3.org space. We can't just ignore that commitment. So how about a slightly different proposal: PROPOSAL 1: That the namespace document (only) for the ISA Person Core vocabulary be published at http://www.w3.org/ns/person as agreed with the EC (the version at http://philarcher.org/isa/person-v1.00.html needs a bit more work but it's more or less done). PROPOSAL 2: The GLD WG considers http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-people/ in its current shape, that is, the FPWD from 05 April 2012 not fit for purpose (modulo the UCR section). Whilst demand on the group's resources exceeds capacity, as a temporary measure, the WG recommends the relevant terms to describe people from Schema.org and to address the UCR. PROPOSAL 3: That the WG resolves to return to the issue when either group capacity increases or once the major work on its other deliverables has been completed. Such work MAY lead to proposals being put forward to the Schema.org consortium. PROPOSAL 4: That these decisions are reflected in a blog post and, more importantly, in a new version of Terms for describing people that differs from the current one only in the Status section. WDYT? Phil. > -- > Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow > DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute > NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway > Ireland, Europe > Tel.: +353 91 495730 > http://mhausenblas.info/ > > On 21 Sep 2012, at 16:49, Bernadette Hyland wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> After today's call, I took the liberty to create a table of all this WG's chartered or planned deliverables, in order to get an overview and see where we are. I hope I haven't missed anything: >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Deliverables >> >> >> Thanks Richard, I appreciate your putting together this table. I offer some thoughts inline in an effort to get the discussion going. >> >> WRT the GLD WG, I want to ensure we deliver a few things *well* rather than more deliverables at a lower level of quality. Caveat: Vocab design is not something I do for a living, I just use them. >> >> My approach is to deliver clear, consistent guidance to new (and returning) LOD developers, as well as, to internal champions promoting it within their organization. >> >>> >>> There are 13 deliverables, 8 of them on REC track, and only 4 have so far published First Public Working Drafts (FPWD). The charter [1] says that all FPWDs were due in December last year, and all REC-track documents should have Last Call (LC) working drafts published by October this year. >> >> I agree with your assessment in terms of 8 REC track items, only 4 are in FPWD and have been hanging in that state since April 2012. The other deliverables are either Notes or wiki pages (GLD Cookbook). >> >> RE: Community Directory is running code that I believe is adequately bounded in terms of requirements. It needs UX/UI attention. Sandro has given to greatest level of feedback [2] which is now being formally tracked & addressed. It will not take many cycles from the GLD WG beyond usability feedback to get the site to a useful state that is inline with our Charter, I sincerely hope. Thus, there is little point in ditching that deliverable since it is *not* taking working group time & attention (besides me at this point). >> >>> >>> A few comments on the current state: >>> >>> 1. If the WG can drop any deliverables, then it probably should do so. >> >> I agree and with the hope that by saying something we begin a constructive conversation. >> >> There are some vocabs that were put up as candidates early in the WG's history that have remained dormant since then. While they are a good idea, we have to balance good ideas with the reality that the WG doesn't enjoy the luxury of chief scientists whose job it is to represent their org in a W3C WG. The reality is, we're passionate advocates & this a form of open data community service for many of us. >> >> RE: People Vocab - while admittedly very important, there is precedent for handling people (via foaf and vCard). Perhaps they are quite unsatisfactory from an international perspective, I don't have necessary expertise to comment. There are several other vocabs actively addressing this: ISA Core Person, Schema.org, others. >> >> Does it make sense to leave it to others?? Did I just commit a cardinal sin saying that out loud?? >> >> RE: Geography & Spatial which is listed in our Charter as optional. The representatives who suggested it no longer attend the WG. I suggest that while a very important vocabulary, we remove it from our Deliverables list. >> >>> >>> 2. The editors of any deliverables that doesn't have a FPWD out yet should probably take urgent steps towards getting their document in shape for FPWD. >> >> ++1. I commit for the one REC track item I'm editor on to fold in existing content & do my bit to help get Best Practices to FPWD before TPAC. >> >>> >>> 3. The observation above is particularly true for any deliverables on REC track. >>> >>> 4. There are several people (Bernadette, Phil, Fadi and myself) who are responsible for three or more deliverables. This is probably bad. >> >> Yes, I agree, that is why I disappointed with the UN's 2001 ruling against cloning of humans ... >> >>> >>> 5. Can we get at least *one* of the documents that are already published as FPWD to LC until October? My guess is that this would probably look good for charter extension discussions. >> >> ++1. Based on level of feedback / interest, I suspect the likely candidates are: RDF Data Cube, DCAT or Organization. So that puts the burden on you, Dave R, Fadi/John/Phil as to committing to dates in 2012. >> >> I agree that without a single FPWD getting to LC and Best Practices not even being in FPWD doesn't support an extension. I'm the boat with the rest of you in terms of needing to carve out time to get some things to the next milestone with some important REC track items. No one is alone in this. >> >> Thanks for everyone's consideration & advice on how to move our efforts forward. Our window to get high quality LOD and best practices in front of people who are assessing open data generally has *never* been better than it is today. Let's work together to cease this window of opportunity please. >> >> Cheers, >> Bernadette >> >> PS. Happy International Peace Week everyone! >> >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> Best, >>> Richard >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/charter >> >> [2] http://code.google.com/p/dir-w3-org/issues/list >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bernadette Hyland, co-chair >> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group >> Charter: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/ > > > -- Phil Archer W3C eGovernment http://www.w3.org/egov/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:03:06 UTC