- From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@izb.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:21:44 +0100
- To: SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
The draft posted on Oct 27 [1] penciled in the following
"featured vocabularies" -- vocabularies to be described in the
Section 1 and provide examples for the good-practice issues
of Section 2 (e.g., a URI policy, published schemas, etc):
FOAF
Dublin Core
SKOS
Princeton Wordnet
Maybe a major medical or life-sciences vocabulary
However, in last Monday's F2F and teleconference, we reached
the following conclusions:
-- Large-scale vocabularies such as SNOMED-CT, HL7, the NCI
metathesaurus, Unified Medical Language, and Gene Ontology
should be cited to illustrate why it is useful to put
such resources online. However, these vocabularies do not
use URIs and are in other respects not appropriate as
illustrations of the good-practice principles in Section 2.
Therefore, these vocabularies should be discussed in a
separate point in Section 3 ("bleeding-edge" issues) [3].
-- Aldo had previously indicated to me by mail that he could
in fact provide some information about good-practice issues
(URI policy, etc) with respect to Princeton Wordnet.
However, in last Monday's discussion I understood that we
want to limit the good-practice examples to those for which
an RDF representation is already maintained by the owning
authority [4] and for which we are reasonably certain that
those representations will be maintained over time [5].
Have I correctly understood that this is not yet the case
with Wordnet?
-- Rather, it was felt that it would be enough to use "simple
vocabularies" in Section 2 [2]. The vocabularies mentioned
were FOAF and Dublin Core [5], though I assume SKOS still
belongs to this group?
-- It was felt that one "terminology style" vocabulary, such
as a FAO thesaurus [7], would still be needed as an example [4],
and Guus was tasked with helping to find such an example [6].
The draft I am preparing for the Wiki reflects this discussion.
Specifically:
-- It adds a "bleeding edge" issue in Section 3 about
large-scale terminological vocabularies;
-- It removes Wordnet and the placeholder
for a "life-sciences vocabulary" as featured vocabularies
in Section 1 and replaces that with a placeholder for a
"terminology style" vocabulary, if we can find a good one
to use.
Tom
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0148.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc#T17-05-47
[3] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc#T17-07-03
[4] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc#T17-08-48
[5] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc#T17-17-17
[6] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc#T17-23-52
[7] http://www.fao.org/agris/aos/Applications/intro.htm#fish
--
Dr. Thomas Baker Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2004 12:16:19 UTC