W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > February 2017

Re: To use or not to use recommended metadata in a W3C ontology ?

From: Ghislain Atemezing <ghislain.atemezing@mondeca.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 19:49:51 +0100
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6FD163B5-01EA-4F2A-B065-C09BBB58B984@mondeca.com>
To: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
> Le 7 févr. 2017 à 19:41, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr> a écrit :
> The proposed integration methodology (see readme.md <http://readme.md/>) includes the following item:
> - be conformant with the linked vocabulary best practices at http://lov.okfn.org/Recommendations_Vocabulary_Design.pdf <http://lov.okfn.org/Recommendations_Vocabulary_Design.pdf>
> These best practices encourage among other to use vocabularies vann and voaf. 

IMHO that document is not a “Bible" :) 
Seriously, we can debate during years to on this but what is important is that there should be enough metadata to better understand and discover the ontology.
If for that you use ex:, vann, or voaf, I think that’s not the point. 

The “Bible” might be this one https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#dataVocabularies <https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#dataVocabularies> (BP 15 in a REC doc )



Ghislain A. Atemezing, Ph.D 
R&D Engineer SemWeb
@ Mondeca, Paris, France
Labs: http://labs.mondeca.com <http://labs.mondeca.com/> 
Tel: +33 (0)1 4111 3034
Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com/>
Twitter: @gatemezing
About Me:  https://w3id.org/people/gatemezing <https://w3id.org/people/gatemezing>

Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2017 18:50:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:29 UTC