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

Re: Requirements for profiles

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:26:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LzKBv7=n5yjQB-k9Oax2EkbrgPt4iyijntyY6+x5Vccfg@mail.gmail.com>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
Cc: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>, Valentine Charles <valentine.charles@europeana.eu>
Profiles should IMHO reference type ontologies where necessary to further
restrict the range of profiled properties (either base specification or a
more general profile).

e.g. a profile for "spatial area statistics standard X" may require the
statistical dimension property  is related to (has a rdfs:range)  a
'feature with a polygon geometry' ,

the "US Census profile" may require this to have a FIPS code and the 2020
census may require it to be from the set of 2020 US  state boundaries, by
reference to a specific implementation.

I think "vocabulary" is a set of definitions in the general case, and is
agnostic about how much information model goes along with that set - so we
need to be pretty careful about assumptions as to what it means here.






On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 10:21 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Are you referring to value vocabularies? I was thinking about
> properties, and in the profiles I've seen they tend to be lists of terms
> representing properties and classes.
>
> kc
>
> On 11/21/17 2:18 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > Profiles should reference controlled vocabularies - and practically
> > these must be accessible via distributions such as REST API endpoints -
> >  - consider GBIF biota taxon vocabulary - miilons of terms and changes
> > every day. Can not embed this in a profile, or even in a static resource.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 09:11 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> > <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 11/21/17 12:25 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >     > Hi Karen,
> >     >
> >     > I'm trying to work on it.
> >     > But I have to say I'm a bit lost, what has happened to our use case
> >     > (5.37) and requirements. At some point everything was included at
> >     > https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID37
> >     > but the requirement list seems to have been really simplified, not
> the
> >     > only requirement derived from 5.37 is
> >     > https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RID11
> >     >
> >     > When we contributed our use case we had listed these requirements:
> >     > - Each application profile needs to be documented, preferably by
> >     > showing/reusing what is common across profiles
> >
> >     We'll make sure that these get in. I do have a very basic question,
> >     though, which is whether you have any assumptions about the content
> of a
> >     profile. This says that it is documented, that it is
> machine-readable,
> >     that it contains validation, and that profiles can contain pieces of
> >     data from other profiles. Is there some statement that can be made
> about
> >     the nature of this data? Are you assuming that profiles contain
> >     vocabulary terms? This seems to be the missing background information
> >     from our requirements.
> >
> >     kc
> >
> >     > - Machine-readable specifications of application profiles need to
> be
> >     > easily publishable, and optimize re-use of existing specification.
> >     > - Application profiles need a rich expression for the the
> >     validation of
> >     > metadata
> >     > - publishers (data providers, intermediary aggregators, Europeana
> and
> >     > DPLA) need to be able to indicate the profile to which a certain
> piece
> >     > of data (record describing an individual cultural object, or a
> whole
> >     > dataset) belong.
> >     > - Data publishers need to be able to serve different profiles of
> the
> >     > same data via the same data publication channel (Web API)
> >     > - Data consumers (intermediary aggregators, Europeana and DPLA,
> data
> >     > consumers) need to be able to specify the profile they are
> >     interested in
> >     > - Europeana needs to be able to accept the data described using EDM
> >     > extensions that are compatible with its EDM-external profile
> >     whether it
> >     > doesn't ingest this data entirely (i.e. some elements will be left
> out
> >     > are they are useless for the main Europeana Collections portal) or
> it
> >     > does ingest it (e.g. for Thematic Collections portals or
> >     domain-specific
> >     > applications that Europeana or third parties would develop)
> >     >
> >     > I'm going to see how it aligns to your list. But I prefered to
> >     send you
> >     > our raw list now, so that you can have a brief look at. If just
> >     because
> >     > this list supports your point " Also, there are some obvious
> >     > requirements, like being both machine and human-readable, having
> >     > identifiers, etc., that we do not have use cases for". Valentine
> and I
> >     > wanted our use case to be a motivation for such requirements...
> >     >
> >     > Cheers,
> >     >
> >     > Antoine
> >     >
> >     > On 21/11/17 16:34, Karen Coyle wrote:
> >     >> Because we need to move to FPWD, if we can agree on the
> >     requirements for
> >     >> profiles as written here, we can amend those for the next
> >     publication of
> >     >> the UCR. We can add a note that these are still in flux.
> >     >>
> >     >> kc
> >     >>
> >     >> On 11/20/17 1:57 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >     >>> Hi Karen, all,
> >     >>>
> >     >>> Sorry I wanted to do this today but I will probably won't have
> time,
> >     >>> also seeing that a considerable thread has appeared after your
> >     initial
> >     >>> email and will probably require reading...
> >     >>> I'll try to do this week, though reorganization at Europeana is
> >     keeping
> >     >>> me busy.
> >     >>>
> >     >>> Very likely regrets for tomorrow by the way :-/
> >     >>>
> >     >>> Antoine
> >     >>>
> >     >>> On 15/11/17 04:32, Karen Coyle wrote:
> >     >>>> All, I'm not sure that this requirement list is complete but it
> >     is what
> >     >>>> I could come up with in a short time so that we could have
> >     something to
> >     >>>> discuss. [Note to Antoine and Valentine: please see if I
> correctly
> >     >>>> captured the requirements from your use case.]
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> I want to mention that I believe there may be more than one
> >     definition
> >     >>>> of "profile" being used in the use cases. In particular, UC 5.3
> >     >>>> (submitted by Ruben) didn't seem to me to be a function of
> >     profiles but
> >     >>>> of the connection service. There may be other such differences
> >     in the
> >     >>>> use cases where I'm not sure if the reference is to the profile
> >     or to a
> >     >>>> specific selection of instance data.
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> Also, there are some obvious requirements, like being both
> >     machine and
> >     >>>> human-readable, having identifiers, etc., that we do not have
> >     use cases
> >     >>>> for. I did a talk at the recent Dublin Core conference that
> >     included a
> >     >>>> number of requirements of this nature that we may wish to
> examine.
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>
> http://dcevents.dublincore.org/IntConf/dc-2017/paper/view/520/643
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> ****
> >     >>>> profiles list valid vocabulary terms for a metadata usage
> >     environment
> >     >>>> (5.37)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> profile vocabulary lists may be defined as closed (no other
> >     terms are
> >     >>>> allowed) or open (other terms are allowed) (5.37)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> conceptually, profiles can extend other vocabularies or
> >     profiles, or
> >     >>>> can
> >     >>>> be refinements of other vocabularies or profiles (5.37)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> profiles can be "cascading", inheriting from other profiles or
> >     profile
> >     >>>> fragments (discussion at first f2f)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> profiles reuse vocabulary terms defined elsewhere (Dublin Core
> >     >>>> profiles;
> >     >>>> no use case)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> profiles must be able to define finer-grained semantics for
> >     vocabulary
> >     >>>> terms that are used (visible in DCAT APs)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> profiles must be able to express rules that support data
> validation
> >     >>>> (cardinality, valid values) (5.41)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> profiles must be able to express cardinality rules of
> >     vocabulary terms
> >     >>>> (5.41)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> profiles can contain links to detailed validation rules or to
> >     >>>> validation
> >     >>>> applications that can process the profile (5.48)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> profiles must be able to support information that can drive data
> >     >>>> creation functions, including brief and detailed documentation
> >     (5.46)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> profiles must be able to express what standards (including
> creation
> >     >>>> rules) the data conforms to (5.43) (5.42)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> profiles must support discoverability via search engines (5.40)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> profiles must have identifiers that can be used to link the DCAT
> >     >>>> description to the relevant profile (seems obvious; no use case)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> *Not covered* (because I didn't know what the requirement would
> >     be):
> >     >>>> 5.3
> >     >>>> Responses can conform to multiple, modular profiles (by Ruben)
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> kc
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>
> >     >
> >
> >     --
> >     Karen Coyle
> >     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
> >     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> >     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
> <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>
> >
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2017 00:27:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 25 March 2019 10:33:20 UTC