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

I think

"I would like to add that namespaces are convenience shorthands in local
documents and have no global meaning except when dealing with some
hard-coded parsers."

"namespace" should be "namespace prefixes" in this sense. Namespaces are
globally unique with stable IRIs.



On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 12:12 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

> 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> 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 <+33%201%2041%2011%2030%2034>
>
> Web: www.mondeca.com
>
> Twitter: @gatemezing
>
> About Me: http://atemezing.org
>
>
>