Re: please review: draft W3C SWIG Note 'Vocabulary of Interlinked Datasets' (voiD)

DCAT vs. VOID:

It seems to me that one (DCAT) is the more general case of the other (VOID).
If so, then there should be a core vocabulary shared by both, and anything
new can be added as an extension.

If neither are proper sub-cases of the other, then it would make sense to
identify their overlap, create THAT as a shared vocabulary about datasets in
general. Then DCAT and VOID could both import that common core and extend as
they see fit.

Creating new variations of essentially the same thing should be avoided if
at all possible.

NB these are generic comments. I have not seen DCAT yet, so there may be
some special considerations.

Michael

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 6:07 AM, 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
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Michael Uschold, PhD
   Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
   LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
   Skype: UscholdM