Re: Clarify Goal descriptions

On 1 Dec 2010, at 11:04, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote:

> Actually, I'm not sure if the problem is that the descriptions are
> unclear, or if we just don't know how to use them.
> We found almost NO overlap between our goals and yours, which is
> rather strange, especially considering Antoine's mail earlier ;-)
> 
> My analysis is that we did the work with a very different perspective.
> Your goals appear to me rather as *requirements*. I mean, if you want
> to create Linked Data, providing a URI is not a goal, it's something
> you *have to* do, hence a requirement (my definition of it, at
> least...)

I see what you mean about calling this a requirement. It does depend on the project and its point of view!

> 
> The goals we came up with are maybe more high-level, or have a
> different perspective, or... I just don't know. I sense they are
> somehow related, but I can't put my finger on it.
> 
> For instance :
> - DESCRIBE: describe a resource and/or provide context for a resource.
> This one is probably related with FIND/SEARCH and DISCOVER/SUGGEST but
> I don't know how so.

I think DESCRIBE is probably in these -- which could certainly be renamed or reworded!
REUSE-SCHEMAS: reuse existing RDF schemas {FOAF, ORE, ...} that represent metadata element sets in publishing the data as RDF
REUSE-VALUE-VOCABS: reuse existing vocabularies already published as LOD {LCSH, GTAA, ...} in publishing the data as RDF, i.e. replacing internal identifiers with URIs from these vocabularies.



> 
> - A goal we've identified would be "facilitate cross-domain modelling
> & mappings" : I'm not sure if this
> one would correspond to the current "MAP" : "create equivalence
> relationships (owl:sameAs, skos:closeMatch) between value vocabularies
> or data items." Maybe we should split between MAP-VALUE for value
> vocabularies, and MAP-METADATA for metadata elements sets or metadata
> vocabularies (we still need our fixed terminology here !)

Yes, I think that this is 
MAP: create equivalence relationships (owl:sameAs, skos:closeMatch) between value vocabularies or data items.

Again, we could certainly reword!

:) -Jodi

> 
> We have more, but I'm waiting for some feedback from Karen to share it
> on the wiki.
> Cheers
> Emma
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Mark van Assem <mam500@vu.nl> wrote:
>> Hi Emma, Karen,
>> 
>> In the last telecon you indicated that the current descriptions of UC Goals
>> [1] were not clear enough for you to apply them in your cluster's UCs.
>> 
>> Is there any way we from the DO cluster team (Jodi, Asaf and me) who came up
>> with them could help to clarify? Which ones are problematic?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Mark
>> [1]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Goals
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> =====
> Emmanuelle Bermès - http://www.bnf.fr
> Manue - http://www.figoblog.org
>