<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi Markus, Hi all,</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">You will find my
comments inserted below in the original text.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">But before that , I
want to emphasise that some terms borrowed from the Datacite
vocabulary definitions are also interesting for representing
roles in the Provenance DM currently developped .</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I think this list of
terms and the topic of vocabularies could benefit from a
splinter meeting or a slot in the Semantic session in Trieste,
next October. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">That would probably
mean to allocate a different time slot to the Semantics session
with at least one Registry session and at least one DM in order
for interested people to join.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">What is your feeling
about that?<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Cheers , Mireille.<br>
</font></p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 20/09/2016 à 15:56, Markus
Demleitner a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20160920135628.GA28172@victor" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Registry,
As explained in the mail
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/registry/2016-August/005112.html">http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/registry/2016-August/005112.html</a> [1]
I plan for VOResource to externalise some vocabularies. The initial
vocabularies would come with VOResource 1.1, and thus I'd like to
have them reviewed as if they were part of the schema.
Today, can I bother you for opinions on the successor to
relationship/type:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://docs.g-vo.org/vocab-test/relationship_type">http://docs.g-vo.org/vocab-test/relationship_type</a>
Points I feel uncertain about:
(1) style mixture. I have kept the classic VOResource terms
(served-by, related-to, etc), and I think we have to do that as these
terms are in active use. I have, however, taken over the DataCite
terms that I could see some use for in the VO. These use CamelCase.
I readily admit that's ugly and potentially annoying since resource
authors will always have to remember which style a specific term
uses. If you really can't stand it, I see two alternatives:
a) Go all the way to DataCite style. This breaks some VO
infrastructure, enough to make me reject that for a 1.1 release
b) Change DataCite terms into the legacy VOResource 1.0 style
(is-supplement-to, etc). That'd make things somewhat harder for
VOResource->DataCite translators, but I could live with that. If
people speak out for this, I'd do it.</pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> I would prefer an
homogeneous vocabulary . So option b) gets my preference .</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20160920135628.GA28172@victor" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
(2) concept selection. Right now, the predicates for
relationship_type are
mirror-of service-for served-by derived-from related-to
Cites
IsSupplementTo IsSupplementedBy
IsContinuedBy Continues
IsNewVersionOf IsPreviousVersionOf
IsPartOf HasPart
IsSourceOf
I'm pretty sure IsContinuedBy and in particular Continues are
valuable additions, leading people along the resource development
(e.g., services going down). IsSourceOf is nice because we
traditionally had derived-from, and this would finally provide the
inverse.
Is*VersionOf would let people chain together various data releases,
and since different services for different data releases is something
fairly common in today's VO, I think having this helps in very real
cases.
IsPartOf and HasPart I'd see as useful when, e.g., SDSS starts
registering individual tables or so.
Cites is DataCite's closest match for what education wanted in their
educational registry extension. Essentially, I'd like to have this
for the discovery use case "give me tutorials that work with tool X".
The *Supplement* terms are a bit fringy to me.
Terms in DataCite that I think won't serve forseeable discovery use
cases and that I hence didn't include in the vocabulary:
IsCitedBy HasMetadata IsMetadataFor IsReferencedBy References
IsDocumentedBy Documents IsCompiledBy Compiles IsVariantFormOf
IsOriginalFormOf IsIdenticalTo IsReviewedBy Reviews IsDerivedFrom
IsSourceOf
Do you disagree with my selection?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">These terms might be
useful to explicit the roles of various instances in the
Entity/Activity/Agent pattern <br>
in the Provenance Model. <br>
<i>isDerivedFrom</i> is a typical link name between a dataset (
entity) and its progenitor for instance.</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20160920135628.GA28172@victor" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
(c) I'm not including IsDerivedFrom (which is about the same as our
derived-from) from the DataCite vocabulary since I expect that here,
the two term sets will live together for quite a while, and I don't
want to deprecate one in favour of the other. Should we? The reason
for the co-existence is that I don't think DataCite will talk about
services any time soon, and so the very important served-by
relationship may not enter DataCite for quite a while.
Opinions?
-- Markus
[1] Erratum: the link to the content/type vocabulary should of course
have been <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://docs.g-vo.org/vocab-test/content_type">http://docs.g-vo.org/vocab-test/content_type</a> in that mail.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
--
Mireille Louys
CDS Laboratoire Icube
Observatoire de Strasbourg Telecom Physique Strasbourg
11 rue de l'Université 300, Bd Sebastien Brandt CS 10413
F- 67000-STRASBOURG F- 67412 ILLKIRCH Cedex
tel: +33 3 68 85 24 34</pre>
</body>
</html>