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

Thanks. That is good to know!

On 02/27/2017 03:03 PM, Ghislain Atemezing-Pro wrote:
> 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/ <http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/>
>     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
>


-- 
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