W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > February 2017

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

From: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:11:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CALsPASVQ9hcVpoNVRCvdaivsMTQPWCYy=Uty+c9_oqYU_URmJA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 20 February 2017 16:12:34 UTC