Re: Typos

Sorry, forgot to edit the subject and start the new thread.

I just posted the same message to a new thread:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-locadd/2014Jan/0037.html

Please use it for future comments on the corresponding issue.

Andrea


On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Andrea Perego <
andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu> wrote:

> (Original mail:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-locadd/2014Jan/0029.html. See
> also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-locadd/2014Jan/0026.html)
>
> Ghislain, Raphaël, thanks for raising this issue. I'm moving this
> discussion in a separate thread, since it concerns more in general the
> issue of how to re-use terms from existing vocabularies.
>
> About defining a new class: Michael and I, along with the ISA CLV TF,
> decided not to do that, since we meant to promote the re-use of
> dcterms:Location. Defining a class locn:Location, even as a subclass of
> dcterms:Location, would have had the opposite effect.
>
> We tried not to specify additional statements to the current definition of
> dcterms:Location (and possible future changes). This is why
> dcterms:Location is not typed, and domain and range are left unspecified.
> But we had to add some annotation properties (plus vs:term_status and
> dcterms:identifier) to explain how it was meant to be re-used in the scope
> of the LOCN vocabulary.
>
> Of course, the same applies to term "geographic identifier" (as spotted by
> Raphaël in [1]).
>
> So, the question is: can we agree on a way to give a context to statements
> concerning the re-use of terms from existing vocabularies? Should we use,
> e.g., the PROV and/or Open Annotation data models, even though this would
> make the specification more complex?
>
> @Bernard, I wonder whether you would like to contribute your view on this
> issue.
>
> It may be also good to share this discussion with other WGs/CGs, who have
> already addressed / are going to address this and similar issues.
>
> @Phil, any suggestion?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Andrea
>
> ----
> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-locadd/2014Jan/0026.html
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>wrote:
>
>> Yes, indeed! It is http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#dcterms:Location
>>>
>>
>> ... but it seems to me that this is a bad practice anyway. Either the
>> vocab wants to re-use the dcterms:Location class and it should not hijack
>> its definition OR it needs its own specific class and it should not give it
>> for QNAME an existing QNAME.
>>
>>
>>   Raphaël
>>
>> --
>> Raphaël Troncy
>> EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech
>> Multimedia Communications Department
>> 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
>> e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
>> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
>> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
>> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
> European Commission DG JRC
> Institute for Environment & Sustainability
> Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>
> DE+RD Unit: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/DE
>
> ----
> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
> position of the European Commission.
>



-- 
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
European Commission DG JRC
Institute for Environment & Sustainability
Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

DE+RD Unit: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/DE

----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.