Making RiC-O metadata compliant with these recommendations would mainly imply that we add to them:
a vann:preferredNamespacePrefix and a vann:preferredNamespaceUri property
a pav:previousVersion property
a few dc properties (e.g. dc;source)
These small changes, along with some mentioned in issue #13, would enable us to submit RiC-O v0.2 to the well-known LOV (Linked Open Vocabularies)[https://lov.linkeddata.es/dataset/lov/] platform. IMHO this would be useful in order to make RiC-O better known, and referenced by search engines. A lot of ontologies and vocabularies, are already included in LOV (e.g. CRM, PREMIS, RDA, LODE, DUL, etc.)
wildit
commented
3 years ago
RiC-O metadata (i.e. the metadata of the ontology itself) miss a few elements according to the common best practices.
In particular, see the following documents:
Making RiC-O metadata compliant with these recommendations would mainly imply that we add to them:
These small changes, along with some mentioned in issue #13, would enable us to submit RiC-O v0.2 to the well-known LOV (Linked Open Vocabularies)[https://lov.linkeddata.es/dataset/lov/] platform. IMHO this would be useful in order to make RiC-O better known, and referenced by search engines. A lot of ontologies and vocabularies, are already included in LOV (e.g. CRM, PREMIS, RDA, LODE, DUL, etc.)