W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > April 2018

Re: scope of profile (negotiation) group

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:06:38 +1000
Message-ID: <CACfF9Lyqsq=HCpg2WNPUfr7YuSHUMK_Dw_LXpNZXNfoXup6auA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Antoine.

I agree with you - its a separate sub-group who should in turn empower the
(yet-to-form) guidance sub-group to explain how to simply handle profile
creation and description in a Web friendly mechanism.

 Note that the people working on profile description are more a subset of
the DCAT group - but of course everyone is encouraged to engage because it
seems we are all touched by the need to describe profiles :-)

Rob


On 20 April 2018 at 08:19, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree that the vocabulary should be a part of the guidance on profiles,
> and that profile negotiation or dcat revision are not heavily impacted by
> the description issue.
>
> Or at least they should not be heavily impacted. In fact this is perhaps
> where we could solve the issue that Karen noted ("profile" is intertwined
> both with DCAT and with content negotiation): we should make sure that the
> DCAT and content negotiation refuse to go into the details of
> guidance/description of profiles and just point to another area. For
> example the DCAT draft should try not to include the descriptions of
> profiles at
> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc/examples - at least
> not until the work is stabilized in another DXWG.
>
> I guess the easiest way to do is to give a home in the group for that work
> - and for the one that Karen has just started on requirements.
> Ideally it would be a separate, new sub-group, to make the difference
> clear.
> However if the people working on guidance/description are very much the
> ones involved in the profile negotiation subgroup, it may be simpler to
> formally extend the scope of the negotiation group, so that it also
> includes profile/guidance as a second stream of work.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> On 19/04/18 00:12, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>
>> My own view is that a "profile description vocabulary" is a necessary
>> part of guidance on profiles, a deliverable we have not yet started - it
>> fills a gap in expression of the requirements.
>>
>> I see that options 1&2 are the same in this context (because a profile is
>> a resource with a URI) - and possibly with some additional best practice
>> guidelines the proposed vocabulary could meet all the requirements in 3.
>>
>> We have a definition - a model to formalise and explain, and worked
>> examples to test should help us understand it better.
>>
>> I dont think either profile negotiation or dcat revision are heavily
>> impacted by the description issue - its "fine-grained semantics" - but that
>> support for whatever forms of short identifiers needed for negotiation
>> should be taken on as a requirement for the profile description language.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On 19 April 2018 at 02:06, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     Antoine, thanks, this is indeed what I hope we will have resolved by
>> the
>>     end of the f2f, but it could be very helpful to begin the discussion
>> in
>>     email and/or github.
>>
>>     I think what is tripping us up at the moment is that the concept of
>>     "profile" is intertwined both with DCAT and with content negotiation,
>>     but we do not yet have a clear definition of what we mean by profile.
>> It
>>     may be best to get clear on that before we talk about profiles in the
>>     two contexts.
>>
>>     We have a base definition [1] which reads:
>>
>>     "A profile is a named set of constraints on one or more identified
>> base
>>     specifications, including the identification of any implementing
>>     subclasses of datatypes, semantic interpretations, vocabularies,
>> options
>>     and parameters of those base specifications necessary to accomplish a
>>     particular function."
>>
>>     This is a good start but we'll need to get into more detail before we
>>     can resolve the larger issue that you bring up, and which I think is
>>     about how we scope the concept of "profile". Here's a short list of
>> what
>>     I see as possible full definitions:
>>
>>     1. A profile is anything that meets the above definition and has a URL
>>     (this is essentially Lars' proposal [2])
>>     2. A profile is anything that meets the above definition and has a
>>     (optional?) profile description (Nick & Rob's proposal [3])
>>     3. A profile is anything that meets the above definition and all of
>> the
>>     approved requirements [4] [5]
>>
>>     I'll soon post something about the profile requirements which may help
>>     us discuss this all further.
>>
>>     kc
>>
>>
>>     [1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/ <
>> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/>
>>     [2] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196 <
>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196>
>>     [3] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc <
>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc>
>>     [4] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/72 <
>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/72>
>>     [5] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/75 <
>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/75>
>>
>>     On 4/18/18 7:42 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>      > Hi everyone (esp Karen, Peter, Lars, Rob and Ruben)
>>      >
>>      > I'm considering trying to be more involved in the profile work,
>> but I am
>>      > not sure where I can fit in - and what are the responsibilities
>> and scopes.
>>      >
>>      > It starts from the discussion we had yesterday on PR198:
>>      > https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/198 <
>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/198>
>>      > Apparently there is now a wiki page that says who would
>> approve/merge it:
>>      > https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette#Contribut
>> ing_to_the_normative_deliverables <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/
>> wiki/GitHub_etiquette#Contributing_to_the_normative_deliverables>
>>      >
>>      > There Lars, Rob and Ruben are indeed assigned to the object of
>> PR198
>>      > https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profiledesc/profil
>> edesc.html <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profiledesc/profi
>> ledesc.html>.
>>      > But this ontology by Rob and Nick is not really about content
>>      > negotiation - it's more about describing what is negotiated.
>>      >
>>      > On the other hand, the wiki page does not list Lars, Rob and Ruben
>> as
>>      > responsible of a document that shows them as editors:
>>      > https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/ <
>> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/>
>>      > Actually I'm not sure what is the scope of this document: the title
>>      > seems to hint that there is more than negotiation into it, while
>> the
>>      > content is still quite focused on negotiation, as Karen remarked
>> in this
>>      > issue:
>>      > https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196 <
>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196>
>>      >
>>      > As noted in issue 196, I've tried to look through all our past
>> minutes
>>      > about organizing this work, and it's still not clear whether we
>> want to
>>      > have one deliverable on both negotiation and guidance, or two
>>      > deliverables, and whether we should progress on both at the same
>> time.
>>      > And whether Lars, Rob and Ruben need help for what they are
>> (perhaps
>>      > informally) tasked to do!
>>      >
>>      > Hopefully the F2F (or perhaps even an earlier call?) will shed some
>>      > light on all this.
>>      >
>>      > Cheers,
>>      >
>>      > Antoine
>>      >
>>      >
>>
>>     --     Karen Coyle
>>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>>     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2018 23:07:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 25 March 2019 10:33:22 UTC