Some of you have probably noted that we’ve been somewhat quiet recently, but as usual, it doesn’t mean nothing is going on, more that we’ve been too busy to come up for air to talk about it.

A few of you might have noticed a tweet from the PBCore folks on a conversation we had with them recently. There’s a fuller note on their blog, with links to other posts describing what they’ve been thinking about as they move forward on upgrading the vocabularies they already have in the OMR.

Shortly after that, a post from Bernard Vatant of the Linked Open Vocabularies project (LOV) came over the W3C discussion list for Linked Open Data. Bernard is a hero to those of us toiling in this vineyard, and LOV one of the go-to places for those interested in what’s available in the vocabulary world and the relationships between those vocabularies. Bernard was criticizing the recent release of the DBpedia Ontology, having seen the announcement and, as is his habit, going in to try and add the new ontology to LOV. His gripes fell into a couple of important categories:

* the ontology namespace was dereferenceable, but what he found there was basically useless (his word)
* finding the ontology content itself required making a path via the documentation at another site to get to the goods
* the content was available as an archive that needed to be opened to get to the RDF
* there was no versioning available, thus no way to determine when and where changes were made

I was pretty stunned to see that a big important ontology was released in that way–so was Bernard apparently, although since that release there has apparently been a meeting of the minds, and the DBpedia Ontology is now resident in LOV. But as I read the post and its critique my mind harkened back to the conversation with PBCore. The issues Bernard brought up were exactly the ones we were discussing with them–how to manage a vocabulary, what tools were available to distribute the vocabulary to ensure easy re-use and understanding, the importance of versioning, providing documentation, etc.

These were all issues we’d been working hard on for RDA, and are still working on behind the RDA Registry. Clearly, there are a lot of folks out there looking for help figuring out how to provide useful access to their vocabularies and to maintain them properly. We’re exploring how we might do similar work for others (so ask us!).

Oh, and if you’re interested on our take on vocabulary versioning, take a look at our recent paper on the subject, presented at the IFLA satellite meeting on LOD in Paris last month.

I plan on posting more about that paper and its ideas later this week.

By Diane Hillmann, September 15, 2014, 2:31 pm (UTC-5)

Add your own comment or set a trackback

Currently no comments

  1. No comment yet

Add your own comment



Follow comments according to this article through a RSS 2.0 feed