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

El 8/2/17 a las 11:07, Maxime Lefrançois escribió:
> 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.

Dear all,

I'm also in favour of reusing vann and voaf.

Kind regards,

> Le mar. 7 févr. 2017 à 23:45, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>         <http://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
>         <http://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 <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>
>         Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
>         Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>
>


-- 

Dr. Raúl García Castro
http://www.garcia-castro.com/

Ontology Engineering Group
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid
Phone: +34 91 336 65 96 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2017 10:33:24 UTC