VOResource 1.1: relationship type vocabulary

[Baptiste Cecconi]

Dear all, 

I agree with most comments in the discussion. 

I would strongly advocate to set the transition to compliance with DataCite and Dublin Core as a goal, so that: 1) interoperability is enhanced on external/neighboring fields; 2) reuse of existing libraries/tools developed with those standards.

Cheers
Baptiste

> Le 26 sept. 2016 à 11:09, Markus Demleitner <msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> a écrit :
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 04:18:29PM -0400, Accomazzi, Alberto wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Mireille Louys <mireille.louys at unistra.fr>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 .
>> 
>> Indeed!
> 
> Certainly, the hope is that provenance will be able to re-use, and
> possibly extend if necessary, this vocabulary.  In order to get
> VOResource 1.1 done in a reasonable timeframe, I'd like to avoid
> entangling it with Provenance, though.  Since adding additional terms
> later is always possible (and indeed the reason to externalise the
> terms), I'd maintain there's no need to, either.  If, however,
> something in there goes *against* provenance plans, this is of course
> a good moment to speak up.
> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> What is your feeling about that?
> 
> We should definitely talk about vocabulary maintenance; in the
> context of the datalink vocabulary, I've put up an experiment
> already:
> 
> http://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/VEPs
> 
> Perhaps that could be used as a starting point for a more general
> discussion on vocabulary maintenance.
> 
> On the more concrete topics of the relationship_type vocabulary, I'm
> responding in another mail limited to the registry mailing list,
> where I'd suggest further discussion on relationship_type terms
> should take place in order to not annoy folks on semantics and DM.
> 
>         -- Markus