ISSUE-147, sub-issue Was: To use or not to use recommended metadata in a W3C ontology ?

This is related to a sub-issue in ISSUE-147:

 - ISSUE-147-7: should we use vann and voaf ?

For now, I see:

Con: Krzysztof
Pro: Maxime, Phil, Raphaël, Ghislain, Rob.

I suggest we vote for this during the next call.

Maxime

Le mar. 7 févr. 2017 à 23:45, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> a
écrit :

> Phil's point about use of some is relevant - go ahead and use annotation
> properties where we think they add value, rather than re-invent these
> wheels (as per use of skos:example) , but justify it against W3C precedents
> .
>
> Not suggesting this (for or against), but important to note for
> completeness...
>
> There is another option here of course, which is to provide metadata
> modules for different vocabularies - i.e. a file with all the metadata
> required for LOV
>
> This can then be made discoverable multiple ways, according to the
> architecture of the Web (and the capability of the discovery platform):
> 1) explicit registration (tell LOV by uploading a ref to the metadata )
> 2) the pattern used for robots.txt - external systems look for a relevant
> metadata pattern (was also proposed for VoiD)
> 3) imported from the normative sosa.rdf doc (nasty...)
> 4) content negotiation using profiles
> 5) IRI hacking - eg adding an underscore to the object local name as per
> some UK gov practices.
>
> (this is all a bit ugly - but thats a bigger question)
>
> The point is, if we think the vocabulary does not have a precedent of
> being used in W3C context, but meets a need, then we can publish a separate
> informative artefact and manage the "placeholder" feel of it.
>
> rob
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 at 09:14 Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
>
>