W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > March 2013

AW: LD Glossary - feedback on form of publishing

From: Benedikt Kaempgen <kaempgen@fzi.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:32:09 +0000
To: Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>
CC: "public-gld-wg@w3.org" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0D7BFFD7C415144DA75C3D49C46AC21512ABAF47@ex-ms-1a.fzi.de>
Hi,

Thanks, Ghislain, for commenting the suggestion to publish the glossary as Linked Data [1]:

>Ummm..I thought about this idea, but I guess the way the doc is
>published is not like an ISO glossary of terms that we are the owners.
>We have just put in one place some terms we think useful for readers to
>refer  to...
The Note makes sense as a deliverable accompanying the BP document.

But the glossary might be useful in other use cases, as well, and as a LD-savvy WG, I think, we should also allow people to refer to those terms using RDF.

>Great! But at the same we must take care of the URI policy for the
>terms, rely on a vocab like SKOS for the terms, etc..
>Your use case is really interesting to give the users that option for
>them to consume these terms as they wish -I guess that why the Glossary
>is just a Note-, unless W3C wants to be the authority for the terms
We can reuse SKOS for the terms. SMW allows to import vocabularies such as SKOS [2]. 

I do not know what you mean with authority for the terms. The most important issue is to have permanently resolvable URIs. As far as I see from other WGs, the GLD wiki will be kept also after the GLD has ended, so that URIs would be permanently resolving.

Although having the terms also in the GLD wiki would require more efforts, I think, it would render the glossary more useful.

Best,

Benedikt

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Linked_Data_Glossary>
[2] <http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Import_vocabulary>

________________________________________
Von: Ghislain Atemezing [auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr]
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. März 2013 10:34
An: Benedikt Kaempgen
Cc: public-gld-wg@w3.org
Betreff: Re: LD Glossary - feedback on form of publishing

Hello Benedikt,
thanks for your feedback.
> I have feedback regarding the Linked Data glossary. Sorry that I did not speak up, yesterday, but I first had to get my head around it.
>
> Looking at the Linked Data glossary [5], I am happy that the GLD has produced something like this; the form it is published, however, I am not too fond of.
You mean having a human readable form in HTML? or you need to have both
form HTML +(ttl/N3/RDF/XML) ?
>
> For me, a glossary always also is a kind of vocabulary and I am strongly in favor of publishing the glossary as Linked Data.
Ummm..I thought about this idea, but I guess the way the doc is
published is not like an ISO glossary of terms that we are the owners.
We have just put in one place some terms we think useful for readers to
refer  to...
>
> Publishing the glossary as a Working Group Note representing the state of the glossary on 15 May 2013, I do not mind, however, I suggest to have a live version of the glossary in the GLD wiki.


> I have started to create such a version [6].
>
> This would bring the following advantages.
>
> 1) Since GLD features Semantic MediaWiki, every page is automatically also published as Linked Data. Therefore, every term gets a URI, e.g.,
>
> * Term: "5 Star Linked Data"
> * HTML page in wiki:http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/5_Star_Linked_Data
> * Information resource (RDF):http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Special:ExportRDF/5_Star_Linked_Data
> * Non-information resource:http://w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Special:URIResolver/5_Star_Linked_Data
>
> This means, publishers can reuse our Linked Data terms in their datasets and vocabularies.
Great! But at the same we must take care of the URI policy for the
terms, rely on a vocab like SKOS for the terms, etc..
Your use case is really interesting to give the users that option for
them to consume these terms as they wish -I guess that why the Glossary
is just a Note-, unless W3C wants to be the authority for the terms
>
> Semantic MediaWiki supports content negotiation (GLD wiki currently does not, which is strange) and we could also set it up to serve nicer URIs [1].
>
> 2) The glossary can be updated more easily. Just see [4] to add a new Linked Data term.
>
> 3) One can watch Linked Data terms (so that you get noticed when terms change) and check the history of terms (including information about the person who did the change). Also, every page has a discussion page where one can discuss the meaning of a term without interfering with its current content.
>
> 4) We can add all kinds of more unstructured information to a "Linked Data term", e.g., links, pictures. Also, we are flexible to add more structured annotations to terms, e.g., owl:sameAs or skos:broader / skos:narrower links; those would also be published as Linked Data.
>
> 5) We can provide the entire glossary as downloadable XML/RDF [2] or Turtle/RDF file [3].

Yes..but iff we are sure to have stable URIs for the terms, reuse
existing vocabs according to our BP documents...

Best,
Ghislain

--
Ghislain Atemezing
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
Campus SophiaTech
450, route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, 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
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 11:32:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:38 UTC