Alignment/Telecon 20111212

From DCMI_MediaWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents Alignment Task Group Telecon

Wiki page
Chair Tom
Expected Tom Baker, Dan Brickley, Stuart Sutton, Bernard Vatant, Ahsan Morshed, Jon Phipps, Dickson Luckose, Antoine Isaac, Kirsten Jeude, Stefanie Ruehle, Corey Harper, Jane Greenberg
Date Monday, December 12, 2011
Start Time 11:00 AM Eastern Std Time
Dial-in Number +1-218-936-4141
Participant Access Code 334034
Chat channel irc://
Mailing list

1. Sources of the mappings


  • The version at appears to be continually updated, and versions are made available in RDF/XML, Turtle, NTriples, and JSON. These versions are slightly more convenient; e.g., when the domain or range of a property is just one class, it replaces the OWL constructs of the version ("unionOf" statements, using blank nodes) with simple domain or range statements.

2. Publication of mappings


  • The [mappings] are published by DBPedia in RDF/XML and linked to from the mappings page maintained by at Should we follow the same pattern?
    • Alternatively, should they be published under, like the SIOC mappings at
    • Alternatively, should they published on a Mercurial repository at W3C being set up for the Web Schemas Task Force? (Does anyone know the status of this?)
    • Do we additionally need to publish human-readable mappings?
  • Should we follow the pattern used for publishing DCMI Terms documentation, i.e.:
    • Assign PURLs to the mappings under the domain
    • Maintain redirects to the latest, time-stamped versions?
    • Alternatively, should we consider other ways to version the mappings -- e.g., using Mercurial or Git?
  • What sort of statement should DCMI issue as context? These mappings potentially set a precedent for others. For example, the statement could say:
    • Inasmuch vocabularies can evolve, and the understanding of how vocabularies relate to each other can change with experience, DCMI makes no guarantees regarding the stability of the mappings.
  • For simplicity, should mapping files fall under the CC0 license ("No Rights Reserved"),
  • These mappings can be published by the "authority" of the Alignment Task Group. Do we foresee a need to formalize or routinize the review and publication mappings, e.g., by a re-oriented Usage Board?

3. Reaching agreement on the mapping proposals


  • Process for reaching agreement. Poll this group? On a call or online? Use Usage Board criteria ("To be approved, a proposal needs more than 50% of assigned votes in favor and less than 25% of assigned votes against.")?
Personal tools