W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > July 2012

Re: [All] domain data category section proposal, please review

From: Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 13:08:05 +0200
Cc: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Message-Id: <AED3F9F3-FC58-4C84-800A-60F1A6281C1B@dfki.de>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Hi all,

Just to follow up on what Felix wrote, I was in discussion with Pedro and we realized that there is a potential issue for our work as we delve into process-related data categories, provenance, and so forth. If we try to define values, our specification will already by obsolete by the time it is out the door. For example, if we define process trigger very well, we will release the specification and immediately we will discover that there was some relevant usage scenario we did not consider that therefore cannot be covered by the values we have. We discussed adopting the "standards as database" approach being taken by ISO TC 37 (hence my frequent references to the ISO Data Category Repository in the past few week).

After discussion with Felix, however, we (Felix and I) see a solution: our work is not to define the permissible values for most of this metadata. Rather we provide a mechanism to point to the values people are using, as we discussed with domain. This is the "glue" idea Felix mentions. That sets aside the issue of *where* to define the values to support interoperability, but by focusing on just the glue it simplifies our implementation requirements and testing greatly. So, for example, Pedro could post the ontology of process trigger he is using and point to it in the implementation with his partners, thus fulfilling the requirement for implementation of the data category. But we do not need to agree and standardize as a group on the possible values, a task that would make our project exponentially more difficult and unwieldy, and we do not need to implement specific values for the data category.

To take another example, in the quality data categories, this principle means we would not define a quality metric ourselves, but rather ways to point and reference external quality metrics.

So we need to keep this principle in mind for the complex data categories: in most cases, we are defining reference mechanisms, not content/values. We simply need to provide a way to point to the work of others (either standardized or proprietary). If we are getting into any sort of prescriptive description of what people should or should not be doing, we are exceeding our mandate.

Best,

Arle

On Jul 4, 2012, at 12:21 , Felix Sasaki wrote:

> Thanks, and I very much agree. Arle recently told me that there was a discussion at the ISO meeting in Madrid about whether MLW-LT will define or refer to data categories, as provided by DCR. I would go the same route as for domain: in these areas there is already a lot of existing metadata. ITS 2.0 can serve "as a glue" to make it easier to use the metadata in various systems.


Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 11:08:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:47 UTC