- From: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:11:45 +0000
- To: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, janowicz@ucsb.edu, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALsPASVQ9hcVpoNVRCvdaivsMTQPWCYy=Uty+c9_oqYU_URmJA@mail.gmail.com>
Dear all, For VOAF, Wiki page https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Voaf_vocabulary lists the two different options. Pull request https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/561 implements the proposal to use VOAF in the github folder *integrated* Kind regards, Maxime Le mer. 8 févr. 2017 à 11:32, Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es> a écrit : > 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 <+34%20913%2036%2065%2096> - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19 > <+34%20913%2052%2048%2019> >
Received on Monday, 20 February 2017 16:12:34 UTC