<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi Alberto, Markus, <br>
<br>
I have uploaded a preliminary agenda for the Semantics session at
Trieste. <br>
<br>
I reserved a slot to discuss about the VOResource 1.1:
relationship term.<br>
This session is in // to Ops. I hope people interested on
vocabularies can attend .<br>
should we present a few slides for the topic ? <br>
I may show the point of view on the provenance DM for instance.<br>
At this point , I don't know wether the semantics group should be
the Vocabulary registration desk for the various vocabularies <br>
in the VO standards, and to which extent all should be
homogeneized.<br>
<br>
This would be interesting to check together at the session or in a
splinter meeting. <br>
<br>
Cheers, Mireille.<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 23/09/2016 à 22:18, Accomazzi,
Alberto a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOFyuCzHe8DBG9n5_dobezm3REss453RToJeS-2EqZuBsiui2g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Mireille and Markus,
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:58 PM,
Mireille Louys <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mireille.louys@unistra.fr" target="_blank">mireille.louys@unistra.fr</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><span style="font-family:"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 .</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Indeed! <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><span style="font-family:"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. </span><br>
</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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Good idea, count me in.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>(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></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>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 <wbr>IsMetadataFor IsReferencedBy <wbr> References
IsDocumentedBy Documents <wbr>IsCompiledBy Compiles IsVariantFormOf
IsOriginalFormOf IsIdenticalTo IsReviewedBy <wbr>Reviews IsDerivedFrom
IsSourceOf
Do you disagree with my selection? </pre></blockquote></div></blockquote><div>
</div><div>I'd include IsDerivedFrom and IsSourceOf (see below).</div><div>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<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
in the Provenance Model.
<i>isDerivedFrom</i> is a typical link name between a dataset (
entity) and its progenitor for instance.</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>(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.</pre></blockquote></div></blockquote><div>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.</div><div>
</div><div>-- Alberto</div><div>
</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><blockquote type="cite"><pre>Opinions?
-- Markus
[1] Erratum: the link to the content/type vocabulary should of course
have been <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://docs.g-vo.org/vocab-test/content_type" target="_blank">http://docs.g-vo.org/vocab-<wbr>test/content_type</a> in that mail.
</pre><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<pre 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: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B33%203%2068%2085%2024%2034" value="+33368852434" target="_blank">+33 3 68 85 24 34</a></pre>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div>
<div>
</div>--
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dr. Alberto Accomazzi
Principal Investigator</div><div>NASA Astrophysics Data System - <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://ads.harvard.edu" target="_blank">http://ads.harvard.edu</a>
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.cfa.harvard.edu" target="_blank">http://www.cfa.harvard.edu</a>
60 Garden St, MS 83, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA</div></div></div>
</div></div>
</blockquote>
<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>