Update in section 5 (Vocabulary Management) #9
Comments
|
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:02:51AM -0700, Baptiste Cecconi wrote:
There is a special case for list of terms that are already in a
data model transitioning to a stand-alone vocabulary (like the
`product-type` vocabulary). In such a case, we should be able to
use VEPs.
You mean, instead of publishing a preliminary vocabulary and somehow
guiding it through the TCG? Hm... I give you the initial review of
vocabularies tends to be too shallow, but whether one or more VEPs
will improve that I'm not sure about.
Can you write a brief story of how you see a review of that kind of
vocabulary should proceed in that version? Perhaps you already have
a concrete vocabulary in mind that could serve as an illustration?
|
|
On the Semantics VEP page, I see that:
May be I'm just too picky, but I don't recall seeing the product-type vocabulary going to TCG. I'm just trying to differentiate between existing vocabularies (previous embedded in a recommendation, and transitioned to Semantics) from new vocabularies (built from scratch). My point is that we should use the VEP process as soon as the vocabulary is implemented on the https://ivoa.net/rdf/ page, not before. Is it the way you see this? |
|
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:43:53PM -0700, Baptiste Cecconi wrote:
On the Semantics [VEP page](https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/VEPs), I see that:
- VEP-008 was abandoned because the vocabulary was in preliminary state,
- VEP-014 is active, although it is the same vocabulary.
May be I'm just too picky, but I don't recall seeing the
product-type vocabulary going to TCG. I'm just trying to
Product-type was reviewed as part of datalink, which uses the
vocabulary.
See the history of the vocabularies repo:
commit 7559db84c51c0c5e3cd78e39c436ae4e2e1726ef
Author: Markus Demleitner
Date: Mon Dec 18 09:52:15 2023 +0100
Un-drafting product-type.
This is by Exec adoption of datalink 1.2,
https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaExecMeetingTM117
My point is that we should use the VEP process as soon as the
vocabulary is implemented on the https://ivoa.net/rdf/ page, not
before. Is it the way you see this?
Well... as long as *all* terms in a vocabulary are preliminary, as is
the case for vocabularies under review, VEPs (which essentially say
"add terms with ivoa:preliminary") don't have much sense. And,
really, we have seen really fundamental changes in vocabularies under
review (in particular product-type). Doing something like that with
VEPs will blow up the TCG.
It may be true, though, that we need to be more explicit about
reviewing vocabularies that are part of standards. Although I've
pointed it out repeatedly, I'm not sure how many TCG members actually
had a look at product-type while looking at datalink.
Perhaps if object-type comes in with obscore, we should try something
and write whatever we learn from it down as some sort of "best
practice" <cringe> in VocInVO2?
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The section explains how to create or update vocabularies.
There is a special case for list of terms that are already in a data model transitioning to a stand-alone vocabulary (like the
product-typevocabulary). In such a case, we should be able to use VEPs.I can prepare a PR with the changes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: