Re: [sdw] iso 19156 URIs vs SSN/SOSA URIs (#1372)

While my original question has been addressed, I am reading this interaction with great interest. 

@PeterParslow, I think the challenges discussed here are also part of a wider concern. 

I am part of the Open Standards For Linked Organisations ( OSLO ) data interoperability program of the Flemish region in Belgium. In there we cocreate with the Flemish community (public administration, businesses, academics and citizens) data standards to be used by the Flemish administration. We have adopted the semantic web as technological backbone to make our standards SMART. Today the program has adopted 1000's of terms (see https://data.vlaanderen.be and more specifically for a list of data standards https://data.vlaanderen.be/standaarden). Our basis a simplified UML with annotations which is translated into the desired artefacts (html, RDF, SHACL, JSON-LD, ...). (See https://github.com/Informatievlaanderen/OSLO-publicationenvironment-template as entrypoint to the automation setup).
Maybe our experience can be helpful for the ISO SMART project. 

And in particular I believe the challenge of **reuse** is of interest here. A foundational aspect of a new  data standard design of an OSLO data standards is the investigation and thus possible reuse of _existing standards_. When possible an OSLO data standard is merely a Flemish/Belgian interpretation of an EU/International standard. And there it is not always so easy. One of the challenges OSLO encounters is that the OSLO approach assumes a/relies on a strong Semantic Web enabled representation of the international standard: namely persistent dereferenceable URIs. And since those are not always present the reuse is made more difficult.

This topic of reuse is actually the key question for me in such an activity. I am not sure if the data standard community is agreeing on the reuse patterns: is cherry picking allowed, does it implies the adoption of the associated constraints as domain, range and cardinality, does it imply the import of the whole vocabulary or not?

Btw, the same discussion happens throughout the EU data interoperability programs. I am supporting also SEMIC and exactly the same discussions pop up at the level and within the interaction with EU member states. 

It is an interesting puzzle how to have the gears of the standards hook into eachother so that at the same time flexibility and correct interpretation are maintained. 


  


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by bertvannuffelen
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1372#issuecomment-1274216371 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2022 07:30:45 UTC