W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > December 2017

Re: Conneg definition was: Re: Start of profiles analysis page - 2nd reply

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:00:09 +1100
Message-ID: <CACfF9LyfNWv8HX+H4++wJrVoQ+iiBYbNxMkx73Fe4GRAK5xS6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Cc: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Agree. Trick will be to find common requirements. Can you outline on more
detail what you think is required?

Nb. Previously i have used void, rdf-qb, skos and url templates to build
linked data views of data elements within a dataset, hence my interest in
conneg by profile as as an enabler. In the new year i'll write up a summary
of the informational gaps i found.


On 14 Dec 2017 8:06 AM, "Annette Greiner" <amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote:

If by "profile descriptions" you mean additional human-readable documents
that might (or might not) accompany a machine-readable profile document, I
agree. I do think that profiles should provide sufficient information for a
linked data engine to do something useful with the data.

On 12/13/17 11:21 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:

+1 - however we may not need to make the profile descriptions themselves
parseable as long as we can express the inheritance semantics and attach
machine-readable resources for conformance validation.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 at 02:30 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> +1
> As I understand it, one of the main reasons that the "Guidance"
> deliverable was included in the charter was exactly because the use of
> PDF files for profiles was considered a poor practice. However, it
> wasn't clear what the alternative would be, and thus the Guidance
> deliverable was included to respond to that. Although it doesn't say
> this directly, machine readability/parsability is a desirable goal.
> kc
> On 12/12/17 5:23 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
> > On a separate note, I really want to discourage use of Word or PDF
> > files. One needn't be a coder to avail oneself of a simple text editor.
> > Machine readability deserves at least some consideration, and by machine
> > readability I don't mean just being viewable with a computer, I mean
> > being readily parseable.
> >
> >
> > On 12/12/17 2:02 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> >>
> >> This may sound like a burden, but its quite a trivial burden on
> >> infrastructure compared to the burden on end users trying to work out
> >> what is the same and different in a forest of PDF documents of
> >> overlapping profiles descriptions. (whilst we want to make publication
> >> easy, make end use impossible is a poor compromise)
> >>
> >>
> >
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2017 22:00:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:44:56 UTC