RE: Requirements for profiles

 

I am not entirely sure how this fit in the discussion here, but the European DCAT-AP profile does cover value vocabularies. For example, it says that for the values of dcat:theme a conformant implementation MUST use a value from the Publications Office MDR Data theme NAL (http://publications.europa.eu/mdr/authority/data-theme/). 

 

Would that still be in your definition of a ‘profiled property’ or would this be a different kind of profile?

 

Makx.

 

From: Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au] 
Sent: 22 November 2017 04:00
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
Cc: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>; Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>; public-dxwg-wg@w3.org; Valentine Charles <valentine.charles@europeana.eu>
Subject: Re: Requirements for profiles

 

+1

 

 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 12:09 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> > wrote:

OK, so it seems that what I was called "vocabularies" you are calling
"profiled properties" and I think yours is the better term. So we are
saying that a profile defines a set of properties (and perhaps also
classes, in the RDF sense).* I'm not sure what a "type ontology" is,
though.

Also, a profile may use properties from a number of different
ontologies/namespaces, not leaning especially on any one. Sometimes
profiles are specializations of a particular ontology or community
metadata standard, but sometimes they are bits and pieces that don't
lean on any base set. If I combine dct:title and foaf:name and
georef:place (I'm making this up) the end result can be a profile. On
the other hand the DPLA "modified EDM" is a profile based on EDM,
perhaps extended or restricted. These two examples show that profiles
can have different relations to one or more base vocabularies.

* I once again would like folks to look at the technology stack of the
Singapore Framework [1] which may be compatible with the statement that
a "profile defines a set of additional structural and constraints and/or
semantic interpretations that can apply to a given document on top of
that document's media type." If the Framework doesn't have the same
sense as the quote, perhaps we can clarify the differences. And
eventually I would like to talk about the concept of description sets
[2] which is the DCMI view of profiles.

kc
[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/
And this is a shortcut to the diagram, which may be the most useful
part:
http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/singapore-framework/singapore-framework.png
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-dsp/ however some of the details
pre-date general acceptance of RDF and need to change, so don't get hung
up on how the lower levels of the model are defined


On 11/21/17 4:26 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> 
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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> 
>     <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >
>     > <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>  <mailto: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>  <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >
>     <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>  <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >> http://kcoyle.net
>     >     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>     >     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>  <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>
>     <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>
>     >
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>  <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> > http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>  <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>
>

--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>  http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>