Skip to main content

Notice

We are in the process of rolling out a soft launch of the RDA website, which includes a new member platform. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: https://rda-login.wicketcloud.com/users/confirmation. Visitors may encounter functionality issues with group pages, navigation, missing content, broken links, etc. As you explore the new site, please provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Thank you for your understanding and support as we work through all issues as quickly as possible. Stay updated about upcoming features and functionalities: https://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-web-platform-upcoming-features-and-functionalities/

#130227

On Jan 14, 2020, at 2:46 PM, srichardUSGIN via InteroperAble Descriptions of Observable Property Terminology WG (I-ADOPT WG) wrote:
> The keywords provide labels, but not resolvable URIs. I hope the long term solution would include resolvable URIs, ideal with some semantic relations between the properties in the vocabulary….
Amen. A long time ago I asked GCMD to do that, or to let my group do that on their behalf. I just could not win that argument. I’m hoping some of the recent semantic releases position it to do so more readily now.
I suspect the reason many are unsettled about GCMD content and solutions is that it’s a communities-contributed resource (as opposed to community-developed or community-managed). So random parts of the community brought their ideas for terms forward and a very large percentage were accepted as is. Much of the initial content was not vetted per any guiding principles, so the result is, umm, idiosyncratic.
Whereas CF is extremely community-driven, plus it has been managed for a long time (probably always, but that’s before I noticed) by expert vocabulary managers who insist on semantic and syntactic consistency across the resource. It was always a very high-quality resource and has improved steadily for the last dozen+ years, IMHO. But regarding Lewis’ points, as many terms as CF has, it often is pretty skimpy when your domain is not one of the core CF domains, and it can take a big time investment to change that. So while CF can be a great starting point, I have found it difficult to adopt and run with to suit the needs of a particular project, if those needs do not align with the standards used for the vocabulary.
Just makes the point that one vocabulary to rule them all is an unlikely outcome, I guess.
John
Amen. A long time ago I asked GCMD to do that, or to let my group do that on their behalf. I just could not win that argument. I’m hoping some of the recent semantic releases position it to do so more readily now.
I suspect the reason many are unsettled about GCMD content and solutions is that it’s a communities-contributed resource (as opposed to community-developed or community-managed). So random parts of the community brought their ideas for terms forward and a very large percentage were accepted as is. Much of the initial content was not vetted per any guiding principles, so the result is, umm, idiosyncratic.
Whereas CF is extremely community-driven, plus it has been managed for a long time (probably always, but that’s before I noticed) by expert vocabulary managers who insist on semantic and syntactic consistency across the resource. It was always a very high-quality resource and has improved steadily for the last dozen+ years, IMHO. But regarding Lewis’ points, as many terms as CF has, it often is pretty skimpy when your domain is not one of the core CF domains, and it can take a big time investment to change that. So while CF can be a great starting point, I have found it difficult to adopt and run with to suit the needs of a particular project, if those needs do not align with the standards used for the vocabulary.
Just makes the point that one vocabulary to rule them all is an unlikely outcome, I guess.
John