Re: Is LOD-cloud alive?

No, they are open. They are just not 'linked' to other ontologies. In 
fact, many people would say that the way some of us think about 'reuse' 
of ontologies is highly problematic but that is an entirely different 
story. Keep in mind that the discussion here is a reflection on 
Alberto's email, not about whether LOV is useful or not (and I clearly 
believe it is).

Best,
Krzysztof



On 01/18/2017 06:57 AM, Helmut Nagy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> would be strange to have a ontology listed in under Linked Open 
> Vocabularies that is not linked to other vocabularies ans is not 
> “open” for legal reasons.
>
> Wouldn’t it?
>
> Regards
> Helmut
>
> --
> *Helmut Nagy**, *COO
> Semantic Web Company GmbH
> Tel +43-1-4021235-33
> Mob +43-6991-9208429
> http://www.poolparty.biz <http://www.semantic-web.at/>
>
>
>> On 17 Jan 2017, at 18:50, Ghislain Atemezing 
>> <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr <mailto:auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>> Thanks for the clarification. Please find below some few comments...
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for not being clear enough. To the best of my understanding 
>>> (and by trying myself) you cannot simply submit your ontology to LOV 
>>> and it will be listed there. The LOV team will, for instance, ask 
>>> you to align your ontology to other ontologies.
>>
>> No, the team will ask you to have minimum metadata and labels, with 
>> link to existing vocabulary. That’s why you have the “L” in LOV :)
>>> This may turn out to be difficult for various reasons. For example,  
>>> for legal reasons companies that develop ontologies sometimes do not 
>>> want to have relations to other ontologies in their own ontology 
>>> especially not to ontologies developed with an unknown maintenance 
>>> model. Many ontologies were developed by students as part of their 
>>> dissertation or projects and are not maintained anymore. While this 
>>> is often no issue for us as a research community, it causes problems 
>>> for the industry. Some industry and government branches, for 
>>> instance, are only allowed to use technologies and specifications 
>>> that have been standardized before. Similarly, if you develop an 
>>> atomic ontology design pattern, you may not want to align it.
>>
>> That’s true. LOV is not pretending to list all the vocabularies out 
>> there. However the main philosophy would be that: if you thing your 
>> vocabulary can be reused by others, just make it visible in LOV. I do 
>> understand that companies might decide not to publish their vocab, 
>> but the community can be proud to show them some samples of 
>> ontologies ready to be reused for free in LOV. This is also part of 
>> the dissemination of SemWeb stack layer, at least the one related to 
>> ontologies.
>> Regarding ODP, I guess you always reuse at least RDFS [1] or OWL [2] 
>> that are already in LOV. So I don’t see the point with the alignment 
>> here. Of course if you don’t provide a URI/labels nor metadata, the 
>> vocab won’t be added in LOV. Here you can find one example (among 
>> others) of an ODP inserted into LOV [3]
>>
>>> Best practice is always context dependent.
>>
>> Sure!
>>>
>>> My main issue with such an 'edited' repository with a small set of 
>>> gate keepers is that the Web and the Linked Data cloud follow the 
>>> AAA(AA) slogan, i.e., "Anyone can say Anything about Any topic 
>>> (Anywhere and at Any time)". For instance, there are datasets on the 
>>> Linked Data cloud that contain errors, are following very diverse 
>>> modeling styles, and so forth. Ideally, an open vocabulary/ontology 
>>> repository would only control for spam and so forth, but not for the 
>>> style or engineering philosophy of the submitted ontologies. Don't 
>>> get me wrong, I would love to have more ontologies submitted to LOV 
>>> and use LOV frequently, but I cannot submit some of the ontologies 
>>> in which I was involved for the reasons mentioned above.
>>
>> There is also the notion of “quality”. Sometimes (and for some of the 
>> reasons you mentioned regarding industry and government branches), 
>> there is a need for a high quality vocab/ontology repository. AFAIK, 
>> LOV tries to play that role. Of course it does not prevent having any 
>> type of other repositories. All of them would certainly serve 
>> different purposes for the benefits of the users.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ghislain
>>
>> [1] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs/rdfs
>> [2] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs/owl
>> [3] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs/odpart
>>
>> ---------------------------------------
>> Ghislain A. Atemezing, Ph.D
>> Mail: ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com <mailto:ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com>
>> Web:https://w3id.org/people/gatemezing <http://www.atemezing.org/>
>> Twitter: @gatemezing
>> About Me: https://about.me/ghislain.atemezing
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net