- From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:57:06 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org Org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
I enthusiastically endorse the ideas posted by Dan, Bernard, and Phil from a DCMI perspective. On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 05:45:22PM +0100, Bernard Vatant wrote: > Discovering vocabularies might be tough, although we have more and more > tools for that (not to mention LOV again here), but assessing those three > key parameters (quality, sustainability, responsibilty) is a headache > mainly because many vocabulary publishers do not take them seriously, as > attested by the crying lack of documentation and metadata for many of them. > We have now serious people and orgnizations eager to enter the linked data > game, and I meet more and more the question : "can we trust X or Y to be > still available in 5-10 years?" ... > We have already exchanged with Tom Baker on this, DCMI have thought seriously about > those issues for a while as you (Dan) are well aware of. 2013 should be a > year of serious action on this. This year, the DC-2013 conference [1] is co-locating this year with the iPres-2013 conference (10th International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects) [2]. We ("we" = me, Bernard, and whoever else would like to help plan) want to take advantage of this co-location to hold a meeting about vocabulary preservation and the potential role of memory institutions. I was amazed to learn just this week that some of the ideas we have been kicking around for awhile re: mirrored caches and the like [3] were put forward by Aaron Swartz already in 2002 [4,5]. Given enough awareness and participation, shouldn't such goals be within our reach in 2014? [1] http://dcevents.dublincore.org/index.php/IntConf/dc-2013/ [2] http://ipres2013.ist.utl.pt/ [3] http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/SSS/SSS10/paper/view/1140/1450 [4] https://public.resource.org/aaron/pub/msg00000.html [5] https://public.resource.org/aaron/pub/ > But I also agree with others that this forum is not necessarily the one to > solve all problems, and certainly not by bringing every other vocabulary > under the schema.org umbrella. Opening several focused tables of > conversation is certainly more profitable. ... > > That parties working on vocabularies designed to be deployed alongside each > > other, could do the world a favour and talk to each other a bit more. The DCMI community, meetings, and mailing lists provide one place for such focused tables of conversation, and if this forum can provide a focal point into which those discussions can feed into or where they can synchronize with larger discussions, let's do it. > > The existence of schema.org > > should not have a chilling effect on the design, use and deployment of > > other RDF vocabularies. Even if the schema.org partner companies are > > not in a position right now to collectively promise to > > support/understand/use/endorse non-schema.org vocabulary, it is still > > healthy to have multiple efforts, initiatives and perspectives. (The > > move towards RDFa Lite is a very positive thing here, btw.) > > Very glad to read that. Diversity is good, but my above suggestions might > help to clarify who are 'we' to begin with. +1 > > While good design > > can help, perhaps even more important is communication. > > Again, triple YES ! Yes indeed! Tom -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 01:57:45 UTC