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

On 02/07/2017 11:48 AM, Ghislain Atemezing-Pro wrote:
> "This is not a research or university project but a long-term effort to generate a vocabulary for many years to come."-
>
> IMHO, having the ontology in the w3c namespace can be enough to guarantee that long term sustainability.

Yes, I think so as well but it also depends on whether this is a 
recommendation, a note, and so forth.
> For government and other agencies, they might have different criteria to reuse terms or vocabularies.
> Reusing SSN will not be judged by the metadata information but by the axioms and terms (class/ properties ) descriptions.

At least not in my experience working with them. If they see that 'xyz' 
is used in an ontology they are going to use, then they would like to 
find out what xyz is and if they find out that it is an ontology that 
has been created years ago by a private person and that there is no 
support for it and no other major player is using said ontology, they 
will be unhappy.

> However for them (or the catalogs of vocabs), or search engine, to discover the "existence" of SSN, those metadata are *really* important.

Prov-o is very visible without all of this and so is old-SSN, DUL, FOAF, 
and so on.

Cheers,
Krzysztof




> However for them (or the catalogs of vocabs), or search engine, to discover the "existence" of SSN, those metadata are *really* important.
>
> Best,
> Ghislain
>
> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse any brevity or typing errors
>
>> Le 7 févr. 2017 à 20:19, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu> a écrit :
>>
>> This is not a research or university project but a long-term effort to generate a vocabulary for many years to come.


-- 
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 20:01:36 UTC