Next steps - formation of task groups

Dear all,
I was going through the spreadsheet in order to put my interests and a question came to my mind.
I'm sorry I was not in Montreal and thus, having missed the discussion, this question might sound very trivial, apologies in case.
How do these tasks relate with existing standards? My question arises as many tasks could be rethought in terms of facilitating the dissemination (and the application) of existing standards, or at least contributing to/improving/discussing critical parts these standards, more than creating new ones (at least, so it seems by reading the description of these tasks).
Just an example:
Ontology Metadata Standard: This consists in developing together a new ontology metadata standard that can be used to semantically describe ontologies/vocabularies/terminologies wherever they are.
Though the short description should not necessarily include references and examples, at the same time its phrasing hardly suggests the reader that there is any awareness (I know there is, obviously) nor any will to consider the already significant number of existing metadata standards, such as:
Ontologies
VOAF: http://lov.okfn.org/vocommons/voaf/
Datasets in general
VoID: http://www.w3.org/TR/void/
LIME: http://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#metadata-lime
DCAT: https://www.dcat.org/
The DCAT application profile for data portals (DCAT-AP) and the various country-specific application profiles DCAT-AP-xx
ADMS: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/
And also the Ontology Marketplace, strictly connected to the above, is not clear on that.
Is there anywhere a wider perspective on these tasks so that one could get a more precise idea about their interest/possibility to contribute?
Again, sorry in advance if I missed anything that should make this more evident to me,
Thanks!
Armando
- Show quoted text -From: simon.cox=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of simon.cox
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 12:40 AM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
Dear VSSIG members
Thanks all for interest in the RDA Vocabulary and Semantic Services Interest Group [0], and particularly to those who attended the recent f2f meeting in Montreal [1].
Our cunning plan to steal some extra time from the following break unfortunately foundered on the compulsory seating arrangements at lunch. However, while we did not bottom-out all the actions we had planned for that meeting, we did set up a framework for next steps, which we would now like to proceed with.
A shared spreadsheet was made available for members to describe tasks and nominate themselves as participants or leaders [2]. Since all VSSIG activities are 'voluntary' (i.e. supported by our home organizations) we can only realistically proceed on those activities where there is enough interest, and where someone has offered to lead or coordinate. Five activities currently meet this threshold, each with a leader and a new Slack Channel [3] as noted:
1. Strategies for aggregating vocabularies - Yann Le Franc - #tg-search-aggregate
2. Vocabulary API White paper - Arthur Smith - #tg-vocab-api
3. Ontology metadata standard - Clement Jonquet - #tg-ontology-metadata
4. Governance: Requesting changes - John Graybeal - #tg-change-requests
5. Strategies for selecting from vocabularies - John Graybeal - #tg-term-selection
Numbers are still not large for any of these, and there are a couple of proposals that do not have a nominated leader. So first we would like to encourage anyone who has an interest in any of the tasks to think about whether they could participate, and if so add their name to the sheet [2]. Next we request that the task leads consider how they want to proceed, and reach out to the other members of the group to schedule some activities. The Slack channels mentioned above have been set up [3], each having initial members according to the names on the sheet.
Please note that anyone who is a member of the vocabulary-services Slack workspace may join any of the open channels to follow the discussions on any of these topics.
Looking forward to some busy-ness folks!
Simon, Adam, Yann, John
[0] https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/vocabulary-services-interest-group
[1] https://www.rd-alliance.org/ig-vocabulary-services-rda-10th-plenary-meeting
[2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gQ5FK7LXmdE5VdXMnDBP8uSJ3Ca-B5Mq...
[3] Reminder - we are using Slack as the primary comms mechanism for VSSIG. If you are not yet a member, please contact one of the chairs and they will add you.
https://vocabulary-services.slack.com/messages
Simon J D Cox
Research Scientist
Environmental Informatics
CSIRO Land and Water
E ***@***.*** T +61 3 9545 2365 M +61 403 302 672
Mail: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
Visit: Central Reception, Research Way, Clayton, Vic 3168
Deliver: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox
orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
github.com/dr-shorthair
lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/agents/Simon%20Cox
@dr_shorthair
https://xkcd.com/1810/
PLEASE NOTE
The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Dear Armando,
Thank you for raising this question. I see your point that the
tasks should have been detailed possibly with some existing examples/
standards, if any.
Coming to the examples like void, dcat that you mentioned, IMO, are more
relevant to the data cataloguing than the Vocabulary/ Ontology (e.g.
Agrovoc) descriptions. The more relevent metadata standard for Ontology /
Vocabulary description is OMV (Ontology Metadata Vocabulary), and very
recently MOD (Metadata for Ontology Description and publication).
In this task our objective (Clement may add more points) is to improve/
extend these existing works (OMV, MOD), and build something that community
would use incorporating the other relevant existing standards. We have a
paper accepted in MTSR 2017 where we have detailed the issues, our
objectives and the tasks. We will share this paper within the group
shortly.
With regards,
Biswanath
On 13-Oct-2017 2:48 PM, "starred" <***@***.***> wrote:
Dear all,
I was going through the spreadsheet in order to put my interests and a
question came to my mind.
I’m sorry I was not in Montreal and thus, having missed the discussion,
this question might sound very trivial, apologies in case.
How do these tasks relate with existing standards? My question arises as
many tasks could be rethought in terms of facilitating the dissemination
(and the application) of existing standards, or at least contributing
to/improving/discussing critical parts these standards, more than creating
new ones (at least, so it seems by reading the description of these tasks).
Just an example:
*Ontology Metadata Standard*: This consists in developing together a new
ontology metadata standard that can be used to semantically describe
ontologies/vocabularies/terminologies wherever they are.
Though the short description should not necessarily include references and
examples, at the same time its phrasing hardly suggests the reader that
there is any awareness (I know there is, obviously) nor any will to
consider the already significant number of existing metadata standards,
such as:
*Ontologies*
VOAF: http://lov.okfn.org/vocommons/voaf/
*Datasets in general*
VoID: http://www.w3.org/TR/void/
LIME: http://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#metadata-lime
DCAT: https://www.dcat.org/
The DCAT application profile for data portals (DCAT-AP) and the various
country-specific application profiles DCAT-AP-xx
ADMS: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/
And also the *Ontology Marketplace*, strictly connected to the above, is
not clear on that.
Is there anywhere a wider perspective on these tasks so that one could get
a more precise idea about their interest/possibility to contribute?
Again, sorry in advance if I missed anything that should make this more
evident to me,
Thanks!
Armando
*From:* simon.cox=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:simon.cox=csiro.au@
rda-groups.org] *On Behalf Of *simon.cox
*Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 12:40 AM
*To:* ***@***.***-groups.org
*Subject:* [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
Dear VSSIG members
Thanks all for interest in the RDA Vocabulary and Semantic Services
Interest Group

[0], and particularly to those who attended the recent f2f meeting in
Montreal

[1].
Our cunning plan to steal some extra time from the following break
unfortunately foundered on the compulsory seating arrangements at lunch.
However, while we did not bottom-out all the actions we had planned for
that meeting, we did set up a framework for next steps, which we would now
like to proceed with.
A shared spreadsheet was made available for members to describe tasks and
nominate themselves as participants or leaders

[2]. Since all VSSIG activities are ‘voluntary’ (i.e. supported by our home
organizations) we can only realistically proceed on those activities where
there is enough interest, and where someone has offered to lead or
coordinate. Five activities currently meet this threshold, each with a
leader and a new Slack Channel
[3] as noted:
1. Strategies for aggregating vocabularies – Yann Le Franc -
#tg-search-aggregate

2. Vocabulary API White paper – Arthur Smith - #tg-vocab-api

3. Ontology metadata standard – Clement Jonquet - #tg-ontology-metadata

4. Governance: Requesting changes – John Graybeal - #tg-change-requests

5. Strategies for selecting from vocabularies – John Graybeal -
#tg-term-selection

Numbers are still not large for any of these, and there are a couple of
proposals that do not have a nominated leader. So first we would like to
encourage anyone who has an interest in any of the tasks to think about
whether they could participate, and if so add their name to the sheet [2].
Next we request that the task leads consider how they want to proceed, and
reach out to the other members of the group to schedule some activities.
The Slack channels mentioned above have been set up [3], each having
initial members according to the names on the sheet.
Please note that anyone who is a member of the vocabulary-services Slack
workspace
may join any of the open channels to follow the discussions on any of these
topics.
Looking forward to some busy-ness folks!
Simon, Adam, Yann, John
[0] https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/vocabulary-services-interest-group
[1] https://www.rd-alliance.org/ig-vocabulary-services-rda-
10th-plenary-meeting
[2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gQ5FK7LXmdE5VdXMnDBP8uSJ3Ca-
B5MqArro1yWI7K8/
[3] Reminder – we are using Slack as the primary comms mechanism for VSSIG.
If you are not yet a member, please contact one of the chairs and they will
add you.
https://vocabulary-services.slack.com/messages
*Simon J D Cox *
Research Scientist
Environmental Informatics
CSIRO Land and Water
*E* ***@***.*** *T* +61 3 9545 2365 *M* +61 403 302 672
*Mail:* Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
* Visit: *Central Reception, Research Way, Clayton, Vic 3168
* Deliver: *Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox
orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3

github.com/dr-shorthair
lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/agents/Simon%20Cox
@dr_shorthair
https://xkcd.com/1810/
*PLEASE NOTE*
The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged.
Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this
email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by
return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not
represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this
communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of
errors, virus, interception or interference.
*Please consider the environment before printing this email.*
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/vocabulary-services-
interest-group/post/next-steps-formation-task-groups
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/
mailinglist/unsubscribe/57813

Dear Biswanath,
thanks for your clarification. Indeed I separated the two set of vocabularies in my examples (ontology metadata vocabularies, such as VOAF, and dataset metadata vocabularies).
I think also there could be some terminological issue as the word “vocabulary” is very ambiguous, and it’s very nasty as the word “vocabulary” tends to be a term with precise meanings, just that they are different depending on the community of reference :-) so that for logicians the word vocabulary is reserved to ontologies (in general, a vocabulary is expected to provide symbols predicating over domain objects), while in some others – e.g. librarians – it could be perfect for thesauri (e.g. in the thesaurus Agrovoc the “voc” stands for vocabulary) as they use thesauri to index documents. Funnily enough, the same ambiguity or dependency on perspective would apply to data (e.g. a thesaurus is data represented through the SKOS ontology…vocabulary).
But we can put aside for a while these terminological issues, and move to ground examples that somehow should allow us to lay down our classification markers. Putting things together, I see two counterexamples to your observations about VoID&co:
1. In VOAF (definitely an ontology metadata vocabulary, as the V stands for Vocabulary, in the “ontology” sense of the word, widely adopted in the SW community), an ontology is a subclass of void:Dataset (http://lov.okfn.org/vocommons/voaf/v2.3/#Vocabulary), exactly because void can be applied to datasets in general, including ontologies. Thus void is interesting enough for ontologies (you can see that its descriptors and statistical info are indeed relevant for any set of triples published on the web, whatever their nature, and thus including ontologies).
2. If I properly resolved your “e.g.-attachment”, you just mentioned Agrovoc as a vocabulary opposed to data cataloguing, and thus out of those metadata vocabularies I listed in the “dataset in general” list. I think however that this file http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/void.ttl (a VoID/LIME description of Agrovoc, which is linked through the void:inDataset property attached to each Agrovoc entity, see: http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_12332 for an example) seems to depict quite a lot of interesting stuff about it.
So, sorry, hope mine was not an annoying set of observations. I’m just humbly trying to set my compass.
Kind Regards,
Armando
P.S: good, it seems we will meet in MTSR in a month and a half ;-)
From: dutta2005=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of biswanathdutta
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 3:36 PM
To: starred <***@***.***>; Vocabulary Services Interest Group <***@***.***-groups.org>
Cc: simon.cox <***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
Dear Armando,
Thank you for raising this question. I see your point that the tasks should have been detailed possibly with some existing examples/ standards, if any.
Coming to the examples like void, dcat that you mentioned, IMO, are more relevant to the data cataloguing than the Vocabulary/ Ontology (e.g. Agrovoc) descriptions. The more relevent metadata standard for Ontology / Vocabulary description is OMV (Ontology Metadata Vocabulary), and very recently MOD (Metadata for Ontology Description and publication).
In this task our objective (Clement may add more points) is to improve/ extend these existing works (OMV, MOD), and build something that community would use incorporating the other relevant existing standards. We have a paper accepted in MTSR 2017 where we have detailed the issues, our objectives and the tasks. We will share this paper within the group shortly.
With regards,
Biswanath
On 13-Oct-2017 2:48 PM, "starred" <***@***.***> wr! ote:
Dear all,
I was going through the spreadsheet in order to put my interests and a question came to my mind.
I’m sorry I was not in Montreal and thus, having missed the discussion, this question might sound very trivial, apologies in case.
How do these tasks relate with existing standards? My question arises as many tasks could be rethought in terms of facilitating the dissemination (and the application) of existing standards, or at least contributing to/improving/discussing critical parts these standards, more than creating new ones (at least, so it seems by reading the description of these tasks).
Just an example:
Ontology Metadata Standard: This consists in developing together a new ontology metadata standard that can be used to semantically describe ontologies/vocabularies/terminologies wherever they are.
Though the short description should not necessarily include references and examples, at the same time its phrasing hardly suggests the reader that there is any awareness (I know there is, obviously) nor any will to consider the already significant number of existing metadata standards, such as:
Ontologies
VOAF: http://lov.okfn.org/vocommons/voaf/
Datasets in general
VoID: http://www.w3.org/TR/void/
LIME: http://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#metadata-lime
DCAT: https://www.dcat.org/
The DCAT application profile for data portals (DCAT-AP) and the various country-specific application profiles DCAT-AP-xx
ADMS: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/
And also the Ontology Marketplace, strictly connected to the above, is not clear on that.
Is there anywhere a wider perspective on these tasks so that one could get a more precise idea about their interest/possibility to contribute?
Again, sorry in advance if I missed anything that should make this more evident to me,
Thanks!
Armando
From: simon.cox=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:simon.cox=***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of simon.cox
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 12:40 AM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
Dear VSSIG members
Thanks all for interest in the RDA Vocabulary and Semantic Services Interest Group [0], and particularly to those who attended the recent f2f meeting in Montreal [1].
Our cunning plan to steal some extra time from the following break unfortunately foundered on the compulsory seating arrangements at lunch. However, while we did not bottom-out all the actions we had planned for that meeting, we did set up a framework for next steps, which we would now like to proceed with.
A shared spreadsheet was made available for members to describe tasks and nominate themselves as participants or leaders [2]. Since all VSSIG activities are ‘voluntary’ (i.e. supported by our home organizations) we can only realistically proceed on those activities where there is enough interest, and where someone has offered to lead or coordinate. Five activities currently meet this threshold, each with a leader and a new Slack Channel [3] as noted:
1. Strategies for aggregating vocabularies – Yann Le Franc - #tg-search-aggregate
1. Vocabulary API White paper – Arthur Smith - #tg-vocab-api
1. Ontology metadata standard – Clement Jonquet - #tg-ontology-metadata
1. Governance: Requesting changes – John Graybeal - #tg-change-requests
1. Strategies for selecting from vocabularies – John Graybeal - #tg-term-selection
Numbers are still not large for any of these, and there are a couple of proposals that do not have a nominated leader. So first we would like to encourage anyone who has an interest in any of the tasks to think about whether they could participate, and if so add their name to the sheet [2]. Next we request that the task leads consider how they want to proceed, and reach out to the other members of the group to schedule some activities. The Slack channels mentioned above have been set up [3], each having initial members according to the names on the sheet.
Please note that anyone who is a member of the vocabulary-services Slack workspace may join any of the open channels to follow the discussions on any of these topics.
Looking forward to some busy-ness folks!
Simon, Adam, Yann, John
[0] https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/vocabulary-services-interest-group
[1] https://www.rd-alliance.org/ig-vocabulary-services-rda-10th-plenary-meeting
[2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gQ5FK7LXmdE5VdXMnDBP8uSJ3Ca-B5Mq...
[3] Reminder – we are using Slack as the primary comms mechanism for VSSIG. If you are not yet a member, please contact one of the chairs and they will add you.
https://vocabulary-services.slack.com/messages
Simon J D Cox
Research Scientist
Environmental Informatics
CSIRO Land and Water
E ***@***.*** T +61 3 9545 2365 M +61 403 302 672
Mail: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
Visit: Central Reception, Research Way, Clayton, Vic 3168
Deliver: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox
orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
github.com/dr-shorthair
lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/agents/Simon%20Cox
@dr_shorthair
https://xkcd.com/1810/
PLEASE NOTE
The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/vocabulary-services-interest-group/pos...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/57813

May I suggest that those interested in this group and topics continue the dialog on the ontology slack channel? That will enable all of us focusing on that channel to engage, and consolidate the group purpose discussions (which may be diverging).
Thanks!
John
_____________________________
From: starred <***@***.***>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 09:44
Subject: Re: [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
To: biswanathdutta <***@***.***>, Vocabulary Services Interest Group <***@***.***-groups.org>
Cc: simon.cox <***@***.***>
Dear Biswanath,
thanks for your clarification. Indeed I separated the two set of vocabularies in my examples (ontology metadata vocabularies, such as VOAF, and dataset metadata vocabularies).
I think also there could be some terminological issue as the word “vocabulary” is very ambiguous, and it’s very nasty as the word “vocabulary” tends to be a term with precise meanings, just that they are different depending on the community of reference :-) so that for logicians the word vocabulary is reserved to ontologies (in general, a vocabulary is expected to provide symbols predicating over domain objects), while in some others – e.g. librarians – it could be perfect for thesauri (e.g. in the thesaurus Agrovoc the “voc” stands for vocabulary) as they use thesauri to index documents. Funnily enough, the same ambiguity or dependency on perspective would apply to data (e.g. a thesaurus is data represented through the SKOS ontology…vocabulary).
But we can put aside for a while these terminological issues, and move to ground examples that somehow should allow us to lay down our classification markers. Putting things together, I see two counterexamples to your observations about VoID&co:
1. In VOAF (definitely an ontology metadata vocabulary, as the V stands for Vocabulary, in the “ontology” sense of the word, widely adopted in the SW community), an ontology is a subclass of void:Dataset (http://lov.okfn.org/vocommons/voaf/v2.3/#Vocabulary), exactly because void can be applied to datasets in general, including ontologies. Thus void is interesting enough for ontologies (you can see that its descriptors and statistical info are indeed relevant for any set of triples published on the web, whatever their nature, and thus including ontologies).
2. If I properly resolved your “e.g.-attachment”, you just mentioned Agrovoc as avocabulary opposed to data cataloguing, and thus out of those metadata vocabularies I listed in the “dataset in general” list. I think however that this filehttp://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/void.ttl (a VoID/LIME description of Agrovoc, which is linked through the void:inDataset property attached to each Agrovoc entity, see:http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_12332 for an example) seems to depict quite a lot of interesting stuff about it.
So, sorry, hope mine was not an annoying set of observations. I’m just humbly trying to set my compass.
Kind Regards,
Armando
P.S: good, it seems we will meet in MTSR in a month and a half ;-)
From: dutta2005=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org]On Behalf Of biswanathdutta
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 3:36 PM
To: starred <***@***.***>; Vocabulary Services Interest Group <***@***.***-groups.org>
Cc: simon.cox <***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
Dear Armando,
Thank you for raising this question. I see your point that the tasks should have been detailed possibly with some existing examples/ standards, if any.
Coming to the examples like void, dcat that you mentioned, IMO, are more relevant to the data cataloguing than the Vocabulary/ Ontology (e.g. Agrovoc) descriptions. The more relevent metadata standard for Ontology / Vocabulary description is OMV (Ontology Metadata Vocabulary), and very recently MOD (Metadata for Ontology Description and publication).
In this task our objective (Clement may add more points) is to improve/ extend these existing works (OMV, MOD), and build something that community would use incorporating the other relevant existing standards. We have a paper accepted in MTSR 2017 where we have detailed the issues, our objectives and the tasks. We will share this paper within the group shortly.
With regards,
Biswanath
On 13-Oct-2017 2:48 PM, "starred" <***@***.***> wr! ote:
Dear all,
I was going through the spreadsheet in order to put my interests and a question came to my mind.
I’m sorry I was not in Montreal and thus, having missed the discussion, this question might sound very trivial, apologies in case.
How do these tasks relate with existing standards? My question arises as many tasks could be rethought in terms of facilitating the dissemination (and the application) of existing standards, or at least contributing to/improving/discussing critical parts these standards, more than creating new ones (at least, so it seems by reading the description of these tasks).
Just an example:
Ontology Metadata Standard: This consists in developing together a new ontology metadata standard that can be used to semantically describe ontologies/vocabularies/terminologies wherever they are.
Though the short description should not necessarily include references and examples, at the same time its phrasing hardly suggests the reader that there is any awareness (I know there is, obviously) nor any will to consider the already significant number of existing metadata standards, such as:
Ontologies
VOAF: http://lov.okfn.org/vocommons/voaf/
Datasets in general
VoID: http://www.w3.org/TR/void/
LIME: http://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#metadata-lime
DCAT: https://www.dcat.org/
The DCAT application profile for data portals (DCAT-AP) and the various country-specific application profiles DCAT-AP-xx
ADMS: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/
And also the Ontology Marketplace, strictly connected to the above, is not clear on that.
Is there anywhere a wider perspective on these tasks so that one could get a more precise idea about their interest/possibility to contribute?
Again, sorry in advance if I missed anything that should make this more evident to me,
Thanks!
Armando
From: simon.cox=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:simon.cox=***@***.***-groups.org]On Behalf Of simon.cox
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 12:40 AM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
Dear VSSIG members
Thanks all for interest in the RDA Vocabulary and Semantic Services Interest Group [0], and particularly to those who attended therecent f2f meeting in Montreal [1].
Our cunning plan to steal some extra time from the following break unfortunately foundered on the compulsory seating arrangements at lunch. However, while we did not bottom-out all the actions we had planned for that meeting, we did set up a framework for next steps, which we would now like to proceed with.
A shared spreadsheet was made available for members to describe tasks and nominate themselves as participants or leaders [2]. Since all VSSIG activities are ‘voluntary’ (i.e. supported by our home organizations) we can only realistically proceed on those activities where there is enough interest, and where someone has offered to lead or coordinate. Five activities currently meet this threshold, each with a leader and a new Slack Channel [3] as noted:
1. Strategies for aggregating vocabularies – Yann Le Franc -#tg-search-aggregate
1. Vocabulary API White paper – Arthur Smith -#tg-vocab-api
1. Ontology metadata standard – Clement Jonquet -#tg-ontology-metadata
1. Governance: Requesting changes – John Graybeal -#tg-change-requests
1. Strategies for selecting from vocabularies – John Graybeal -#tg-term-selection
Numbers are still not large for any of these, and there are a couple of proposals that do not have a nominated leader. So first we would like to encourage anyone who has an interest in any of the tasks to think about whether they could participate, and if so add their name to the sheet [2]. Next we request that the task leads consider how they want to proceed, and reach out to the other members of the group to schedule some activities. The Slack channels mentioned above have been set up [3], each having initial members according to the names on the sheet.
Please note that anyone who is a member of thevocabulary-services Slack workspace may join any of the open channels to follow the discussions on any of these topics.
Looking forward to some busy-ness folks!
Simon, Adam, Yann, John
[0] https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/vocabulary-services-interest-group
[1] https://www.rd-alliance.org/ig-vocabulary-services-rda-10th-plenary-meeting
[2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gQ5FK7LXmdE5VdXMnDBP8uSJ3Ca-B5Mq...
[3] Reminder – we are using Slack as the primary comms mechanism for VSSIG. If you are not yet a member, please contact one of the chairs and they will add you.
https://vocabulary-services.slack.com/messages
Simon J D Cox
Research Scientist
Environmental Informatics
CSIRO Land and Water
***@***.***T +61 3 9545 2365M +61 403 302 672
Mail: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
Visit:Central Reception,Research Way, Clayton, Vic 3168
Deliver:Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox
orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
github.com/dr-shorthair
lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/agents/Simon%20Cox
@dr_shorthair
https://xkcd.com/1810/
PLEASE NOTE
The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/vocabulary-services-interest-group/pos...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/57813

Dear VSSIG group and task group,
I have started giving some back ground information on the Slack channel :
https://vocabulary-services.slack.com/messages/C7GJM7U57/
Please join us!
Clement
Dr. Clement JONQUET - PhD in Informatics - Assistant Professor
University of Montpellier
Coordinator of the SIFR and AgroPortal
projects
Visiting scholar, Stanford University (EU Marie Curie fellow)
***@***.***
http://www.lirmm.fr/~jonquet
@Montpellier : +33/4 67 14 97 43
@Stanford : +1 650 723 6725
De : jgraybeal=***@***.***-groups.org
[mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] De la part de graybeal
Envoyé : vendredi 13 octobre 2017 12:18
À : starred <***@***.***>; biswanathdutta <***@***.***>;
Vocabulary Services Interest Group <***@***.***-groups.org>
Cc : simon.cox <***@***.***>
Objet : Re: [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
May I suggest that those interested in this group and topics continue the
dialog on the ontology slack channel? That will enable all of us focusing on
that channel to engage, and consolidate the group purpose discussions (which
may be diverging).
Thanks!
John
_____________________________
From: starred <***@***.*** >
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 09:44
Subject: Re: [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
To: biswanathdutta <***@***.*** >,
Vocabulary Services Interest Group <***@***.***-groups.org
>
Cc: simon.cox <***@***.*** >
Dear Biswanath,
thanks for your clarification. Indeed I separated the two set of
vocabularies in my examples (ontology metadata vocabularies, such as VOAF,
and dataset metadata vocabularies).
I think also there could be some terminological issue as the word
“vocabulary” is very ambiguous, and it’s very nasty as the word “vocabulary”
tends to be a term with precise meanings, just that they are different
depending on the community of reference :-) so that for logicians the word
vocabulary is reserved to ontologies (in general, a vocabulary is expected
to provide symbols predicating over domain objects), while in some others –
e.g. librarians – it could be perfect for thesauri (e.g. in the thesaurus
Agrovoc the “voc” stands for vocabulary) as they use thesauri to index
documents. Funnily enough, the same ambiguity or dependency on perspective
would apply to data (e.g. a thesaurus is data represented through the SKOS
ontology…vocabulary).
But we can put aside for a while these terminological issues, and move to
ground examples that somehow should allow us to lay down our classification
markers. Putting things together, I see two counterexamples to your
observations about VoID&co:
1. In VOAF (definitely an ontology metadata vocabulary, as the V stands
for Vocabulary, in the “ontology” sense of the word, widely adopted in the
SW community), an ontology is a subclass of void:Dataset
(http://lov.okfn.org/vocommons/voaf/v2.3/#Vocabulary), exactly because void
can be applied to datasets in general, including ontologies. Thus void is
interesting enough for ontologies (you can see that its descriptors and
statistical info are indeed relevant for any set of triples published on the
web, whatever their nature, and thus including ontologies).
2. If I properly resolved your “e.g.-attachment”, you just mentioned
Agrovoc as avocabulary opposed to data cataloguing, and thus out of those
metadata vocabularies I listed in the “dataset in general” list. I think
however that this filehttp://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/void.ttl (a VoID/LIME
description of Agrovoc, which is linked through the void:inDataset property
attached to each Agrovoc entity, see:http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_12332
for an example) seems to depict quite a lot of interesting stuff about it.
So, sorry, hope mine was not an annoying set of observations. I’m just
humbly trying to set my compass.
Kind Regards,
Armando
P.S: good, it seems we will meet in MTSR in a month and a half ;-)
From: dutta2005=***@***.***-groups.org

[mailto:***@***.***-groups.org]On Behalf Of biswanathdutta
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 3:36 PM
To: starred <***@***.*** >;
Vocabulary Services Interest Group <***@***.***-groups.org
>
Cc: simon.cox <***@***.*** >
Subject: Re: [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
Dear Armando,
Thank you for raising this question. I see your point that the
tasks should have been detailed possibly with some existing examples/
standards, if any.
Coming to the examples like void, dcat that you mentioned, IMO, are more
relevant to the data cataloguing than the Vocabulary/ Ontology (e.g.
Agrovoc) descriptions. The more relevent metadata standard for Ontology /
Vocabulary description is OMV (Ontology Metadata Vocabulary), and very
recently MOD (Metadata for Ontology Description and publication).
In this task our objective (Clement may add more points) is to improve/
extend these existing works (OMV, MOD), and build something that community
would use incorporating the other relevant existing standards. We have a
paper accepted in MTSR 2017 where we have detailed the issues, our
objectives and the tasks. We will share this paper within the group shortly.
With regards,
Biswanath
On 13-Oct-2017 2:48 PM, "starred" <***@***.***
> wr! ote:
Dear all,
I was going through the spreadsheet in order to put my interests and a
question came to my mind.
I’m sorry I was not in Montreal and thus, having missed the discussion, this
question might sound very trivial, apologies in case.
How do these tasks relate with existing standards? My question arises as
many tasks could be rethought in terms of facilitating the dissemination
(and the application) of existing standards, or at least contributing
to/improving/discussing critical parts these standards, more than creating
new ones (at least, so it seems by reading the description of these tasks).
Just an example:
Ontology Metadata Standard: This consists in developing together a new
ontology metadata standard that can be used to semantically describe
ontologies/vocabularies/terminologies wherever they are.
Though the short description should not necessarily include references and
examples, at the same time its phrasing hardly suggests the reader that
there is any awareness (I know there is, obviously) nor any will to consider
the already significant number of existing metadata standards, such as:
Ontologies
VOAF: http://lov.okfn.org/vocommons/voaf/
Datasets in general
VoID: http://www.w3.org/TR/void/
LIME:
http://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#metadata-lime
DCAT: https://www.dcat.org/
The DCAT application profile for data portals (DCAT-AP) and the various
country-specific application profiles DCAT-AP-xx
ADMS: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/
And also the Ontology Marketplace, strictly connected to the above, is not
clear on that.
Is there anywhere a wider perspective on these tasks so that one could get a
more precise idea about their interest/possibility to contribute?
Again, sorry in advance if I missed anything that should make this more
evident to me,
Thanks!
Armando
From: simon.cox=***@***.***-groups.org
[mailto:simon.cox =***@***.***-groups.org
]On Behalf Of simon.cox
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 12:40 AM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org

Subject: [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
Dear VSSIG members
Thanks all for interest in the RDA Vocabulary and Semantic Services Interest
Group

[0], and particularly to those who attended therecent f2f meeting in
Montreal
Our cunning plan to steal some extra time from the following break
unfortunately foundered on the compulsory seating arrangements at lunch.
However, while we did not bottom-out all the actions we had planned for that
meeting, we did set up a framework for next steps, which we would now like
to proceed with.
A shared spreadsheet was made available for members to describe tasks and
nominate themselves as participants or leaders

o1yWI7K8/> [2]. Since all VSSIG activities are ‘voluntary’ (i.e. supported
by our home organizations) we can only realistically proceed on those
activities where there is enough interest, and where someone has offered to
lead or coordinate. Five activities currently meet this threshold, each with
a leader and a new Slack Channel
[3] as noted:
1. Strategies for aggregating vocabularies – Yann Le Franc
-#tg-search-aggregate

2. Vocabulary API White paper – Arthur Smith -#tg-vocab-api

3. Ontology metadata standard – Clement Jonquet -#tg-ontology-metadata

4. Governance: Requesting changes – John Graybeal -#tg-change-requests

5. Strategies for selecting from vocabularies – John Graybeal
-#tg-term-selection

Numbers are still not large for any of these, and there are a couple of
proposals that do not have a nominated leader. So first we would like to
encourage anyone who has an interest in any of the tasks to think about
whether they could participate, and if so add their name to the sheet [2].
Next we request that the task leads consider how they want to proceed, and
reach out to the other members of the group to schedule some activities. The
Slack channels mentioned above have been set up [3], each having initial
members according to the names on the sheet.
Please note that anyone who is a member of thevocabulary-services Slack
workspace
may join any of the open channels to follow the discussions on any of these
topics.
Looking forward to some busy-ness folks!
Simon, Adam, Yann, John
[0] https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/vocabulary-services-interest-group
[1]
https://www.rd-alliance.org/ig-vocabulary-services-rda-10th-plenary-meeting
[2]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gQ5FK7LXmdE5VdXMnDBP8uSJ3Ca-B5Mq...
1yWI7K8/
[3] Reminder – we are using Slack as the primary comms mechanism for VSSIG.
If you are not yet a member, please contact one of the chairs and they will
add you.
https://vocabulary-services.slack.com/messages
Simon J D Cox
Research Scientist
Environmental Informatics
CSIRO Land and Water
E ***@***.*** +61 3 9545 2365M +61 403
302 672
Mail: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
Visit:Central Reception,Research Way, Clayton, Vic 3168
Deliver:Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox
orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3

github.com/dr-shorthair
lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/agents/Simon%20Cox

@dr_shorthair
https://xkcd.com/1810/
PLEASE NOTE
The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged.
Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this
email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return
email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent,
warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been
maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception
or interference.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
--
Full post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/vocabulary-services-interest-group/pos...
xt-steps-formation-task-groups
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/57813

Armando,
(Sorry, I really started this email a loooong time ago...)
These are great questions and observations. Generally speaking, these VSSIG tasks are meant to take into account any past and existing activity, as best we can, and move the work forward in the most needed areas. What it means to "move the work forward" may be quite different for different tasks.
Individual task descriptions were necessarily abbreviated due to time, and I think one of the first steps of each group will be to see if any modifications to the task description will be helpful going forward.
In this one example, the situation is a bit special, in that Clement Jonquet's team has in fact done a very detailed job of mapping all of the different standards you cite into a 'universal' set of concepts that could serve the goal. But that is not the end of the work that he and other colleagues have been considering—future integration with "MOD" has been under discussion for a while—and if I am not mistaken, this team could serve as the fulcrum for pursuing that further integration.
In general, these issues will be taken up on a case-by-case basis by each team, again with the primary goal of making progress in the next 6 (now 5) months, before the next RDA plenary.
john
On Oct 13, 2017, at 2:30 AM, starred <***@***.***> wrote:
Dear all,
I was going through the spreadsheet in order to put my interests and a question came to my mind.
I’m sorry I was not in Montreal and thus, having missed the discussion, this question might sound very trivial, apologies in case.
How do these tasks relate with existing standards? My question arises as many tasks could be rethought in terms of facilitating the dissemination (and the application) of existing standards, or at least contributing to/improving/discussing critical parts these standards, more than creating new ones (at least, so it seems by reading the description of these tasks).
Just an example:
Ontology Metadata Standard: This consists in developing together a new ontology metadata standard that can be used to semantically describe ontologies/vocabularies/terminologies wherever they are.
Though the short description should not necessarily include references and examples, at the same time its phrasing hardly suggests the reader that there is any awareness (I know there is, obviously) nor any will to consider the already significant number of existing metadata standards, such as:
Ontologies
VOAF: http://lov.okfn.org/vocommons/voaf/
Datasets in general
VoID: http://www.w3.org/TR/void/
LIME: http://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#metadata-lime
DCAT: https://www.dcat.org/
The DCAT application profile for data portals (DCAT-AP) and the various country-specific application profiles DCAT-AP-xx
ADMS: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/
And also the Ontology Marketplace, strictly connected to the above, is not clear on that.
Is there anywhere a wider perspective on these tasks so that one could get a more precise idea about their interest/possibility to contribute?
Again, sorry in advance if I missed anything that should make this more evident to me,
Thanks!
Armando
- Show quoted text -From: simon.cox=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of simon.cox
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 12:40 AM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
Dear VSSIG members
Thanks all for interest in the RDA Vocabulary and Semantic Services Interest Group [0], and particularly to those who attended the recent f2f meeting in Montreal [1].
Our cunning plan to steal some extra time from the following break unfortunately foundered on the compulsory seating arrangements at lunch. However, while we did not bottom-out all the actions we had planned for that meeting, we did set up a framework for next steps, which we would now like to proceed with.
A shared spreadsheet was made available for members to describe tasks and nominate themselves as participants or leaders [2]. Since all VSSIG activities are ‘voluntary’ (i.e. supported by our home organizations) we can only realistically proceed on those activities where there is enough interest, and where someone has offered to lead or coordinate. Five activities currently meet this threshold, each with a leader and a new Slack Channel [3] as noted:
1. Strategies for aggregating vocabularies – Yann Le Franc - #tg-search-aggregate
2. Vocabulary API White paper – Arthur Smith - #tg-vocab-api
3. Ontology metadata standard – Clement Jonquet - #tg-ontology-metadata
4. Governance: Requesting changes – John Graybeal - #tg-change-requests
5. Strategies for selecting from vocabularies – John Graybeal - #tg-term-selection
Numbers are still not large for any of these, and there are a couple of proposals that do not have a nominated leader. So first we would like to encourage anyone who has an interest in any of the tasks to think about whether they could participate, and if so add their name to the sheet [2]. Next we request that the task leads consider how they want to proceed, and reach out to the other members of the group to schedule some activities. The Slack channels mentioned above have been set up [3], each having initial members according to the names on the sheet.
Please note that anyone who is a member of the vocabulary-services Slack workspace may join any of the open channels to follow the discussions on any of these topics.
Looking forward to some busy-ness folks!
Simon, Adam, Yann, John
[0] https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/vocabulary-services-interest-group
[1] https://www.rd-alliance.org/ig-vocabulary-services-rda-10th-plenary-meeting
[2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gQ5FK7LXmdE5VdXMnDBP8uSJ3Ca-B5Mq...
[3] Reminder – we are using Slack as the primary comms mechanism for VSSIG. If you are not yet a member, please contact one of the chairs and they will add you.
https://vocabulary-services.slack.com/messages
Simon J D Cox
Research Scientist
Environmental Informatics
CSIRO Land and Water
E ***@***.*** T +61 3 9545 2365 M +61 403 302 672
Mail: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
Visit: Central Reception, Research Way, Clayton, Vic 3168
Deliver: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox
orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
github.com/dr-shorthair
lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/agents/Simon%20Cox
@dr_shorthair
https://xkcd.com/1810/
PLEASE NOTE
The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/vocabulary-services-interest-group/pos...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/57813
========================
John Graybeal
Technical Program Manager
Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
650-736-1632

Dear John,
many thanks for your clarifying email. This helps me to be more fine-tuned in the contexts of these task groups :-)
Kind Regards,
Armando
From: John Graybeal [mailto:***@***.***]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 12:02 AM
To: starred <***@***.***>
Cc: Simon Cox <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
Armando,
(Sorry, I really started this email a loooong time ago...)
These are great questions and observations. Generally speaking, these VSSIG tasks are meant to take into account any past and existing activity, as best we can, and move the work forward in the most needed areas. What it means to "move the work forward" may be quite different for different tasks.
Individual task descriptions were necessarily abbreviated due to time, and I think one of the first steps of each group will be to see if any modifications to the task description will be helpful going forward.
In this one example, the situation is a bit special, in that Clement Jonquet's team has in fact done a very detailed job of mapping all of the different standards you cite into a 'universal' set of concepts that could serve the goal. But that is not the end of the work that he and other colleagues have been considering—future integration with "MOD" has been under discussion for a while—and if I am not mistaken, this team could serve as the fulcrum for pursuing that further integration.
In general, these issues will be taken up on a case-by-case basis by each team, again with the primary goal of making progress in the next 6 (now 5) months, before the next RDA plenary.
john
On Oct 13, 2017, at 2:30 AM, starred <***@***.***> wrote:
Dear all,
I was going through the spreadsheet in order to put my interests and a question came to my mind.
I’m sorry I was not in Montreal and thus, having missed the discussion, this question might sound very trivial, apologies in case.
How do these tasks relate with existing standards? My question arises as many tasks could be rethought in terms of facilitating the dissemination (and the application) of existing standards, or at least contributing to/improving/discussing critical parts these standards, more than creating new ones (at least, so it seems by reading the description of these tasks).
Just an example:
Ontology Metadata Standard: This consists in developing together a new ontology metadata standard that can be used to semantically describe ontologies/vocabularies/terminologies wherever they are.
Though the short description should not necessarily include references and examples, at the same time its phrasing hardly suggests the reader that there is any awareness (I know there is, obviously) nor any will to consider the already significant number of existing metadata standards, such as:
Ontologies
VOAF: http://lov.okfn.org/vocommons/voaf/
Datasets in general
VoID: http://www.w3.org/TR/void/
LIME: http://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#metadata-lime
DCAT: https://www.dcat.org/
The DCAT application profile for data portals (DCAT-AP) and the various country-specific application profiles DCAT-AP-xx
ADMS: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/
And also the Ontology Marketplace, strictly connected to the above, is not clear on that.
Is there anywhere a wider perspective on these tasks so that one could get a more precise idea about their interest/possibility to contribute?
Again, sorry in advance if I missed anything that should make this more evident to me,
Thanks!
Armando
- Show quoted text -From: simon.cox=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of simon.cox
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 12:40 AM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [vocabulary_services] Next steps - formation of task groups
Dear VSSIG members
Thanks all for interest in the RDA Vocabulary and Semantic Services Interest Group [0], and particularly to those who attended the recent f2f meeting in Montreal [1].
Our cunning plan to steal some extra time from the following break unfortunately foundered on the compulsory seating arrangements at lunch. However, while we did not bottom-out all the actions we had planned for that meeting, we did set up a framework for next steps, which we would now like to proceed with.
A shared spreadsheet was made available for members to describe tasks and nominate themselves as participants or leaders [2]. Since all VSSIG activities are ‘voluntary’ (i.e. supported by our home organizations) we can only realistically proceed on those activities where there is enough interest, and where someone has offered to lead or coordinate. Five activities currently meet this threshold, each with a leader and a new Slack Channel [3] as noted:
1. Strategies for aggregating vocabularies – Yann Le Franc - #tg-search-aggregate
2. Vocabulary API White paper – Arthur Smith - #tg-vocab-api
3. Ontology metadata standard – Clement Jonquet - #tg-ontology-metadata
4. Governance: Requesting changes – John Graybeal - #tg-change-requests
5. Strategies for selecting from vocabularies – John Graybeal - #tg-term-selection
Numbers are still not large for any of these, and there are a couple of proposals that do not have a nominated leader. So first we would like to encourage anyone who has an interest in any of the tasks to think about whether they could participate, and if so add their name to the sheet [2]. Next we request that the task leads consider how they want to proceed, and reach out to the other members of the group to schedule some activities. The Slack channels mentioned above have been set up [3], each having initial members according to the names on the sheet.
Please note that anyone who is a member of the vocabulary-services Slack workspace may join any of the open channels to follow the discussions on any of these topics.
Looking forward to some busy-ness folks!
Simon, Adam, Yann, John
[0] https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/vocabulary-services-interest-group
[1] https://www.rd-alliance.org/ig-vocabulary-services-rda-10th-plenary-meeting
[2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gQ5FK7LXmdE5VdXMnDBP8uSJ3Ca-B5Mq...
[3] Reminder – we are using Slack as the primary comms mechanism for VSSIG. If you are not yet a member, please contact one of the chairs and they will add you.
https://vocabulary-services.slack.com/messages
Simon J D Cox
Research Scientist
Environmental Informatics
CSIRO Land and Water
E ***@***.*** T +61 3 9545 2365 M +61 403 302 672
Mail: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
Visit: Central Reception, Research Way, Clayton, Vic 3168
Deliver: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox
orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
github.com/dr-shorthair
lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/agents/Simon%20Cox
@dr_shorthair
https://xkcd.com/1810/
PLEASE NOTE
The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/vocabulary-services-interest-group/pos...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/57813
========================
John Graybeal
Technical Program Manager
Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
650-736-1632