- 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