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: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 19:53:33 +0000
Message-ID: <CALsPASWw1uvFUQxaXxd0YZ0bg2Q-x9ZQ36RT6zAx65sAU4_h5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: janowicz@ucsb.edu, Ghislain Atemezing <ghislain.atemezing@mondeca.com>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
I don't want to debate for years, and I'm well aware that we are not
dealing with a simple research project here, may it be from the EU, or from
any other continent.

Your arguments seem reasonable, although I could make the point that voaf
and vann are not proposed to be *imported*. Hence whenever these ontologies
would disappear from the web, nothing would break.

Anyways.That's 2 against 1 for now, I suggest in the absence of any mail to
this thread within a few days and any change in the balance, I simply
remove these metadata from the ontologies.

I'm also aware that we need to get some consensus pretty fast on the rest
of the integration, and there is a long way to go.
Let's move on to the other metadata and issues ?


Le mar. 7 févr. 2017 à 20:19, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu> a
écrit :

> On 02/07/2017 10:49 AM, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:
> Hello,
> Le 7 févr. 2017 à 19:41, Maxime Lefrançois < <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
> maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr> a écrit :
> The proposed integration methodology (see 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" :)
> Yes, not only is this not a 'bible', it is also that the industry and
> large government agencies operate completely differently than researchers
> and individual research projects. Many government and industry partners
> simple cannot use the small ontologies/vocabularies developed by students,
> postdocs, EU projects, and so forth, because they have to commit to
> offering many, many years of support for their customers and in many cases
> they are even forced by law to only use standardized work. Please, let us
> not make SOSA/SSN difficult to use by introducing many new properties (and
> the ontologies where they come from) for the sake of being perceived as
> innovative or what not.  This is not a research or university project but a
> long-term effort to generate a vocabulary for many years to come.
> Krzysztof
> 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 (BP
> 15 in a REC doc )
> Best,
> Ghislain
> --------------------------------------------
> Ghislain A. Atemezing, Ph.D
> R&D Engineer SemWeb
> @ Mondeca, Paris, France
> Labs: http://labs.mondeca.com
> Tel: +33 (0)1 4111 3034 <01%2041%2011%2030%2034>
> Web: www.mondeca.com
> Twitter: @gatemezing
> About Me:   <https://w3id.org/people/gatemezing>
> https://w3id.org/people/gatemezing
> --
> 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
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2017 19:54:19 UTC

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