- From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@izb.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:58:41 +0200
- To: SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Dear all, DC2004 in Shanghai was very stimulating, with several working-group meetings discussing issues directly related to Semantic Web. Eric, Dan, and Charles were there. If I'm not mistaken, the deadline for drafts to be considered at the F2F meeting is next Monday, 25 October. I have read back through discussion of the VM "scoping draft", drawn some conclusions (outlined below), am now editing the draft accordingly, and plan to post the draft to this list on Monday with a cover note and a proposed timeline for completion. Basically, I will propose that we then move the draft to a Wiki for a few weeks so that we can all bang in some rough text and bibliographic references. At some point I would then pull the text out of the Wiki and try to turn it into something more coherent. Etcetera. My suggestion is that we aim at doing the following: 1. Formulate a handful of rough good-practice principles, e.g.: -- Identify Terms using URI references. -- Articulate and publish policies about the identified terms (e.g., semantic stability, persistence). -- Document the terms. -- Declare the terms in schemas. -- Identify versions of terms (heavy vs light styles). 2. Focus on a limited set of "key" examples representative of different styles and purposes, such as: FOAF Light Descriptive Metadata DC Medium Descriptive Metadata SKOS Medium Thesauri Wordnet Heavy Wordnet Each "key" example would be introduced in a paragraph or two; then examples from each would provide a set of threads running through the principles. The point is not to exclude examples from other vocabularies but to provide some focus. 3. Try to agree on a very _small_ set of basic words and try to express the other jargons in those words: -- Term (notional) -- Vocabulary (sometimes called Namespace) -- Term/Vocabulary Description (documentary) -- Term/Vocabulary Declaration (machine-processable) -- Versioning (identification of changes to a Term or Vocabulary) -- Vocabulary Owner (controversial though it may be) In particular, I am keen to avoid the sorts of confusion that arises (in the DC context at any rate) by the word "namespace". The plan of attack would be something like this: -- Focus first on good-practice principles (#1). -- Use the "key" examples to elucidate the principles (#2). -- Capture our very rough agreement on terminology (#3). -- For areas on which agreement seems particularly remote, summarize the range of opinions and practices in a separate section or in footnotes. -- Last of all, write an introduction saying what the note is about (various types of vocabularies) and allude to the role they play in the Semantic Web. Comments? Tom -- 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 Friday, 22 October 2004 15:53:37 UTC