VOResource 1.1: relationship type vocabulary/ a common question to various WGs

[Mireille Louys]

Hi Alberto, Markus,

I have uploaded a preliminary agenda for the Semantics session at Trieste.

I reserved a slot to discuss about the VOResource 1.1: relationship term.
This session is in // to Ops. I hope people interested on vocabularies 
can attend .
should we present a few slides for the topic ?
I may show the point of view on the provenance DM for instance.
At this point , I don't know wether the semantics group should be the 
Vocabulary registration desk for the various vocabularies
in the VO standards, and to which extent all should be homogeneized.

This would be interesting to check together at the session or in a 
splinter meeting.

Cheers, Mireille.

Le 23/09/2016 à 22:18, Accomazzi, Alberto a écrit :
> Hi Mireille and Markus,
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Mireille Louys 
> <mireille.louys at unistra.fr <mailto: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!
>
>     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.
>
>     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?
>
> Good idea, count me in.
>
>>     (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.
>     I would prefer an homogeneous vocabulary . So option b) gets my
>     preference .
>
>
> I also have a slight preference for option b).  And I don't think 
> having to go to a v.2 (rather than 1.1) is a huge burden, but people 
> who are directly affected by the change should speak up!
>
>>     Terms in DataCite that I think won't serve forseeable discovery use
>>     cases and that I hence didn't include in the vocabulary:
>>
>>     IsCitedBy  HasMetadataIsMetadataFor  IsReferencedBy  References
>>     IsDocumentedBy DocumentsIsCompiledBy  Compiles   IsVariantFormOf
>>     IsOriginalFormOf   IsIdenticalTo IsReviewedByReviews IsDerivedFrom
>>     IsSourceOf
>>
>>     Do you disagree with my selection?
>
> I'd include IsDerivedFrom and IsSourceOf (see below).
>
>     These terms might be useful to explicit the roles of various
>     instances in the Entity/Activity/Agent pattern in the Provenance
>     Model. /isDerivedFrom/ is a typical link name between a dataset (
>     entity) and its progenitor for instance.
>>     (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.
>
> Call me naive, but I would suggest that getting our needed 
> relationships into DataCite's schema should be an achievable goal.  I 
> just noticed that version 4.0 came with some additional elements (none 
> too interesting for us), which indicates that the working group is 
> quite active and (based on what I observed) open to consider use cases 
>  -- after all we got bibcodes in there as a recognized identifier 
> scheme.  So I would consider it a success if we could minimize 
> VO-specific terms in favor of Dublin Core or DataCite ones going 
> forward.  And getting our terms into those standards would be the path 
> to it.
> -- Alberto
>
>>     Opinions?
>>
>>              -- Markus
>>
>>
>>     [1] Erratum: the link to the content/type vocabulary should of course
>>     have beenhttp://docs.g-vo.org/vocab-test/content_type
>>     <http://docs.g-vo.org/vocab-test/content_type>  in that mail.
>
>     -- 
>     --
>     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 <tel:%2B33%203%2068%2085%2024%2034>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Alberto Accomazzi Principal Investigator
> NASA Astrophysics Data System - http://ads.harvard.edu 
> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - 
> http://www.cfa.harvard.edu 60 Garden St, MS 83, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
-- 
--
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/attachments/20161011/f50f2360/attachment.html>