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

Hello,
[Just for info re LOV and Prefix.cc]

Le ven. 24 févr. 2017 à 19:42, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu> a
écrit :

> > 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).
>

Prefix.cc and LOV trie to "talk to each other" through mappings between the
2 services (thanks to federated queries in SPARQL) [0] . You can see here
[1] the effort since 2013.
Actually it reminds me to send to Richard another new set of mappings :)

Best,
Ghislain
[0]  https://github.com/cygri/prefix.cc/wiki
[1] https://github.com/cygri/prefix.cc/tree/master/bulk-imports

>
> 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
>
>
> --
--------------------------------------------
Ghislain A. Atemezing, Ph.D
R&D Engineer
@ Mondeca, Paris, France
Labs: http://labs.mondeca.com
Tel: +33 (0)1 4111 3034
Web: www.mondeca.com
Twitter: @gatemezing
About Me: http://atemezing.org