- From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:25:06 +0100
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Cc: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Semantic Web community <semantic-web@w3.org>
myc2 as a next implementer. I think the problem can be solved in a not too difficult way yet in a very positive one. Dcat for the general dataset terms and Void for the RDF/Linked data aspects. the merge can probably take no more than 1 day of work ? but please do decide on 1 way to say things (And the final format e.g. RDF vs CSV doesnt seem a good reason to use an ontology vs another to describe e.g. the subject keywords of the dataset) cheers Giovanni On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: > > Thomas, > >> voidD has been seriously improved by this note. > > Thanks! > >> However, there has been some discussion earlier about how it relates to >> DCAT [1] and vice versa. > > Acknowledged. We have a respective issue for this [1] and, given that > Richard is active in both DCAT and voiD, it should be possible to address > this. > >> There is a lot of overlap, and early adopters might feel puzzled which >> one to use or how to put both together. >> At least one of the two should should address this somehow, don't you think? > > In general it is simple. If the data you describe is an RDF dataset, use > voiD. If you want to describe any other kind of data (such as CSV, etc.), > use DCAT. This rule of thumb should help. > > I admit there are corner cases where it is not as easy to decide what to use > (for example in the case where data is offered in both RDF and CSV), but as > I said earlier, we are aware of the issue and are working on a solution. > > The idea is, as with all of the features, that we first have a look at what > the community does (how it is used, which good practices emerge, etc.) and > then try to come up with an advice. > > Would this work for you? > > Thanks again for your time and the feedback provided! > > Cheers, > Michael > > [1] http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/issues/detail?id=63 > > -- > Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow > LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre > DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute > NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway > Ireland, Europe > Tel. +353 91 495730 > http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ > http://sw-app.org/about.html > > > >> From: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com> >> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:54:44 +0100 >> To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> >> Cc: Semantic Web community <semantic-web@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: please review: draft W3C SWIG Note 'Vocabulary of Interlinked >> Datasets' (voiD) >> Resent-From: Semantic Web community <semantic-web@w3.org> >> Resent-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:56:55 +0000 >> >> Dan, >> >> voidD has been seriously improved by this note. >> However, there has been some discussion earlier about how it relates to >> DCAT [1] and vice versa. >> There is a lot of overlap, and early adopters might feel puzzled which >> one to use or how to put both together. >> At least one of the two should should address this somehow, don't you think? >> >> Best regards, >> Thomas >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki/Data_Catalog_Vocabulary >> >> Am 16.12.2010 15:35, schrieb Dan Brickley: >>> Dear Semantic Web Interest Group, >>> >>> As you might recall, semantic-web@w3.org is the home list of W3C's >>> Semantic Web Interest Group. Unlike other more industrious groups we >>> exist primarily as a discussion forum. However, occasionally some of >>> us get together and collaborate, and these collaborations can give >>> rise to W3C Notes (eg. from a while back, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfcal/ >>> ). So, several SWIG members have been collaborating (in an open and >>> public way) on something called 'voiD', and have produced a draft of a >>> SWIG Note, details below. The voiD work addresses issues around RDF >>> dataset description and discovery, and I'm very pleased to propose it >>> as a W3C SWIG Note. >>> >>> We don't have a very rigid process for these notes, but they are >>> useful to do, and we should perhaps do them more often. I've asked >>> the voiD team to give a brief outline of the work, and we suggest a >>> deadline of end of January 2011 for feedback comments. There is a >>> snapshot 'Editor's Draft' for review in SWIG space at W3C [8] below, >>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/void/ and discussion is welcomed >>> here on semantic-web@w3.org >>> >>> So thanks to Keith Alexander, Richard Cyganiak, Michael Hausenblas, >>> Jun Zhao for their hard work on all this, and to you all in advance >>> for your reviews and feedback. Assuming no major issues are found, we >>> should be able to proceed with publishing it as a W3C Note during >>> February. >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> Please find below the voiD SWIG Note submission: >>> >>> === >>> The 'Vocabulary of Interlinked Datasets' (voiD) is an RDF-Schema vocabulary >>> for expressing metadata about RDF datasets. With voiD, the discovery and >>> usage of Linked Datasets can be performed both effectively and efficiently. >>> A dataset is a collection of data, published and maintained by a single >>> provider, available as RDF, and accessible, for example through >>> dereferenceable HTTP URIs or a SPARQL endpoint. >>> >>> The development of voiD started in mid 2008, with a first version of the >>> vocabulary and guide published in 01/2009 [1]. Since then, voiD has enjoyed >>> considerable uptake in the Linked Data community and beyond, with usage >>> throughout from data.gov.uk to individual datasets [2]. >>> >>> A number of voiD-based implementations is available via [3]. The development >>> of the core voiD vocabulary and the guide is an open process with a >>> dedicated mailing list [4] and issue tracker [5]. >>> >>> W3C-wise, voiD is relevant for the work in the SPARQL WG [6] as well as the >>> upcoming eGov WG [7]. >>> >>> We hereby submit the Editor'sDraft 'Describing Linked Datasets with the voiD >>> Vocabulary' [8] to W3C's Semantic Web Interest Group (SWIG) with the goal to >>> publish it as a W3C Interest Group Note. We appreciate feedback on this draft >>> till 31 Jan 2011 via the 'semantic-web@w3.org' mailing list. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> the voiD 'Editors Team': >>> Keith Alexander, Richard Cyganiak, Michael Hausenblas, Jun Zhao >>> >>> [1] http://vocab.deri.ie/void/guide/2009-01-29 >>> [2] http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/lodcloud/state/#data-set-level-metadata >>> [3] http://semanticweb.org/wiki/VoiD >>> [4] http://groups.google.com/group/void-discussion >>> [5] http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/issues/ >>> [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/ >>> [7] http://www.w3.org/2011/govdata/charter >>> [8] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/void/ >>> === >>> >> >> >> -- >> Thomas Bandholtz >> Principal Consultant >> >> innoQ Deutschland GmbH >> Halskestr. 17 >> D-40880 Ratingen, Germany >> http://www.innoq.com >> thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com >> +49 178 4049387 >> >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 14:26:24 UTC