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

The pulse is pretty faint on prefix.cc
Is Richard still interested and able?

Simon

From: Ghislain Atemezing-Pro [mailto:ghislain.atemezing@mondeca.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 28 February, 2017 10:04
To: janowicz@ucsb.edu; Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>; Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.mondeca.com>
Twitter: @gatemezing
About Me: http://atemezing.org