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

> I'm not sure which industry and/or large government agencies you're 
> representing or with whom you had this experience. My experience is 
> different: for example, the largest government agencies in France 
> (INSEE for the national statistical institutes, IGN for the national 
> geographic institute, DILA for the administrative documentation) or in 
> Europe (e.g. the legislation department having worked with the ELI 
> ontology, also translated into a schema.org extension) have all 
> embraced those vocabularies (vann and voaf) to make their vocabularies 
> discoverable. They didn't express the concerns you're sharing. I'm 
> also working with medium size industry who never voice those concerns. 
> Mondeca, which worked for numerous clients since many years, might 
> have more experience to share. Can you please detail who are those 
> industry and government agencies who have expressed concerns and what 
> those concerns were precisely? 

This is exactly what we should be discussing. It may simply be a matter 
of who you ask and how they are working. I am not familiar with any 
agency in France, so I will just assume that they work the way you 
described. How would those agencies decide on which sources, e.g., 
vocabularies, are authoritative, trustworthy, will be maintained, will 
persist (e.g., in terms of their URI), and so forth. I assume they would 
not be okay with just using  any external source, right? These are the 
questions that I am getting all the time. Btw, also from libraries as 
long-term preservation is one of their key goals. Other issues that are 
often raised center around ownership, licensing, copyrights, and so 
forth. Also, have you seen the related soft reuse discussion on the 
semantic web list?


On 02/07/2017 01:15 PM, Raphaël Troncy wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> These best practices encourage among other to use vocabularies vann and
>> voaf.
>
> We are not talking about "importing" those vocabularies but to re-use 
> some terms (properties to be more explicit) defined in those 
> vocabularies in order to add useful metadata on the ontology and 
> enable the ontology to be discoverable. This is a de-facto good 
> practice that is being more and more embraced.
>
>>> I would strongly suggest not to flood the users with all those 
>>> different vocabularies such as
>>> vann and voaf.  Many companies and government agencies cannot use 
>>> products that include
>>> parts that are not standardized or for which there is no clear 
>>> (commercial) partner. A company
>>> (or government agency) that wants to use our ontologies will have to 
>>> learn and understand all
>>> these other vocabularies and be able to offer support for them for 
>>> 20+ years and they are not
>>> going to do so. Keep in mind that what we are doing here is not a 
>>> research project.
>
> I'm not sure which industry and/or large government agencies you're 
> representing or with whom you had this experience. My experience is 
> different: for example, the largest government agencies in France 
> (INSEE for the national statistical institutes, IGN for the national 
> geographic institute, DILA for the administrative documentation) or in 
> Europe (e.g. the legislation department having worked with the ELI 
> ontology, also translated into a schema.org extension) have all 
> embraced those vocabularies (vann and voaf) to make their vocabularies 
> discoverable. They didn't express the concerns you're sharing. I'm 
> also working with medium size industry who never voice those concerns. 
> Mondeca, which worked for numerous clients since many years, might 
> have more experience to share. Can you please detail who are those 
> industry and government agencies who have expressed concerns and what 
> those concerns were precisely?
> Best regards.
>
>   Raphaël
>


-- 
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 22:14:58 UTC