Re: [Minutes] Plenary call - 2017-02-22

> First, prefix.cc has no official status, no authority, and may no 
> longer be maintained. 

Thanks for pointing this out. Note however, that the same is true (to a 
certain degree) for VANN, LOV, and some of the other metadata 
vocabularies (aside of the fact that some of them are still being 
maintained).

Best,
Krzysztof


On 02/24/2017 04:34 AM, Raphaël Troncy wrote:
> 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
>


-- 
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

Received on Friday, 24 February 2017 18:41:27 UTC