- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:34:11 +0100
- To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
- Cc: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Dear all, > The draft minutes of Wednesday's plenary call are available at: > http://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-sdw-minutes.html Thanks for the minutes and belated regrets. One observation reading the minutes: > KJanowic: look at prefix.cc for how people look up ontologies > ... this is the common way > ... one namespace > ... we need to keep to the common pattern @Krzysztof, you have often referred to prefix.cc in your argumentation from what I can read. I'm not comfortable with this. First, prefix.cc has no official status, no authority, and may no longer be maintained. It was discontinued for a moment and Richard said that he is not interested in investing time on it. This was a social experiment. Anyone can spam the system, associating any URI with any prefix and adding +1 to increase the rank. This is for alleviating all those known problems that vocabularies such as VANN and VOAF and tools such as LOV have been created, so that a vocabulary author declares what should be the preferred prefix / namespace for the published vocabulary. I don't think that the functioning of a system such as prefix.cc is relevant to the discussion of whether one, two or more namespaces should be adopted for SSN. Best regards. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech Data Science Department 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France. e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Friday, 24 February 2017 12:34:48 UTC