As stated in Rec. 3, the semantic artefact metadata is important for both findability and reusability. Standard vocabularies such as Dublin Core and FOAF for example, should be used to describe the semantic artefact. Agreeing on a common set of standards would allow to improve the interoperability of the metadata descriptions. This should also apply to the metadata associated with the content.
This is effectively a repeat of the recommendation to agree on a common metadata standard. Any common metadata standard would use standard vocabularies (but not entirely standard vocabularies, because some vocabularies would have to be developed for the common metadata standard ... but then they would be standard.)
Description
As stated in Rec. 3, the semantic artefact metadata is important for both findability and reusability. Standard vocabularies such as Dublin Core and FOAF for example, should be used to describe the semantic artefact. Agreeing on a common set of standards would allow to improve the interoperability of the metadata descriptions. This should also apply to the metadata associated with the content.
Existing recommendations:
● LOV recommendations[46]
● FDP metadata scheme[47]
● OBO Foundry
Stakeholder: Practitioner and Community
This is effectively a repeat of the recommendation to agree on a common metadata standard. Any common metadata standard would use standard vocabularies (but not entirely standard vocabularies, because some vocabularies would have to be developed for the common metadata standard ... but then they would be standard.)