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

Re: scope of profile (negotiation) group

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 07:54:55 -0700
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <136d86e1-a3bc-43ca-2dbe-0f370e115bd0@kcoyle.net>
Thanks, Rob. That eases my mind considerably!

kc

On 4/26/18 11:15 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> as modelled dct:conformsTo works fine as the predicate to link DCAT to a
> profile..
> 
> I had a long chat with Simon about where this fits in, and he will come
> to the F2F with a sense of its role in the wider challenge of dataset
> description. Hopefully you can resolve the best "home" for this -
> personally I don't mind and am willing to be the editor for a separate
> deliverable. 
> 
> Its distinct piece of work, but one that will IMHO help the "guidance
> for DCAT profiles" deliverable - as it will enable formalism of the key
> statements about profile hierarchies and different resource types we
> already see in the DCAT profiling practices.
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 April 2018 at 14:56, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On 4/26/18 12:36 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
>     > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:51 PM, Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>] wrote:
>     > 
>     >> I'm reading the 'profile description' offered by Rob and Nick as
>     >> 'metadata about the profile'. It gives what I would consider to be
>     >> administrative and descriptive information about the profile, but is not
>     >> itself an actionable profile.
>     > 
>     > What exactly is an "actionable profile"?
> 
>     I believe it is the same as what you call a "schema". Something written
>     in code that can be processed by programs.
> 
>     > 
>     >> The profile description links a DCAT
>     >> expression to a profile, but is not either one. Is that a correct way to
>     >> view it?
>     > 
>     > I'm not sure I agree here. I thought what Rob and Nicholas have worked out links a "Profile" to a "Standard" it's a profileOf, and then it links the "Profile" to an "ImplementationResourceDescription" that describes things like XML
>     Schemas or ShEx Documents that implement the "Profile". But maybe I
>     got things mixed up again...
>     > 
> 
>     In my mind, what you say here is what the profile description *is* - it
>     describes any standard that the profile is a profile of, it then
>     identifies (and links) to any of the expressions of the profile. What
>     I'm not sure of is whether there's a DCAT property that links from the
>     DCAT description to the profile description - that is, if DCAT and
>     profiles are linked through the profile description. I would really like
>     to see a macro diagram that shows what (if anything) links this all
>     together.
> 
>     >> If so, it's kind of a fourth deliverable, and to my mind could be
>     >> associated either with DCAT or with the guidelines, as we prefer.
>     > 
>     > I think we should be careful not to commit ourselves to too many deliverables...
> 
>     I agree. Which is why I'm asking where this profile description fits
>     into the the deliverables that we already have.
> 
>     kc
> 
>     >
>     > Best,
>     >
>     > Lars
>     >
>     >> On 4/25/18 2:21 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>     >>> Sorry Rob my inbox had messed up with your mail :-/
>     >>> Good that we agree!
>     >>>
>     >>> Would it be possible to have the people working on profile
>     description
>     >>> as a subset of DCAT be also (or instead) attached to the profile
>     >>> sub-group? That would make things more natural, i.e. the 'method and
>     >>> technology' would be discussed in general not in the specific of
>     DCAT I
>     >>> know that you are not confused when you work on it (and I think
>     that I
>     >>> am not confused, anymore) but getting things a bit more formal
>     and clean
>     >>> may help a bit. If just by giving motivation for the profile
>     >>> guidance/description work to progress. I.e it would exist with a
>     >>> 'client' (i.e. DCAT) waiting for its progress.
>     >>>
>     >>> I'm also saying this because I've tried to join the profile
>     >>> (negotiation) sub-group for the first time today and there was
>     only Lars
>     >>> and I. If DXWG creates a sub-group on profile guidance, or
>     re-use and
>     >>> extend the profile negotiation calls to discuss
>     guidance/description, we
>     >>> may need all the people working on related matters to be also
>     formally
>     >>> attached to that group, in order to get a critical size.
>     >>>
>     >>> Cheers,
>     >>>
>     >>> Antoine
>     >>>
>     >>> On 20/04/18 01:06, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>     >>>> 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
>     <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>
>     >>>> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto: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
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc/examples>
>     >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc/examples
>     <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>
>     >>>> <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:
>     >>>>
>     >>>>              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/>
>     >>>> <https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/
>     <https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/>>
>     >>>> <https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/
>     <https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/>
>     >>>> <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>
>     >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196>>
>     >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196>
>     >>>> <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>
>     >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc>>
>     >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc>
>     >>>> <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>
>     >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/72
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/72>>
>     >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/72
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/72>
>     >>>> <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>
>     >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/75
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/75>>
>     >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/75
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/75>
>     >>>> <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>
>     >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/198
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/198>>
>     >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/198
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/198>
>     >>>> <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#Contributing_to_the_normative_
>     <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette#Contributing_to_the_normative_>
>     >> deliverables
>     >>>>
>     >>
>     <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette#Contributing_to_the_normativ
>     <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette#Contributing_to_the_normativ>
>     >> e_deliverables>
>     >>>>
>     >>
>     <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette#Contributing_to_the_normativ
>     <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette#Contributing_to_the_normativ>
>     >> e_deliverables
>     >>>>
>     >>
>     <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette#Contributing_to_the_normativ
>     <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette#Contributing_to_the_normativ>
>     >> e_deliverables>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>               >
>     >>>>               > There Lars, Rob and Ruben are indeed assigned
>     to the
>     >>>> object of PR198
>     >>>>               >
>     >>>>
>     https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profiledesc/profiledesc.html
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profiledesc/profiledesc.html>
>     >>>>
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profiledesc/profiledesc.html
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profiledesc/profiledesc.html>>
>     >>>>
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profiledesc/profiledesc.html
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profiledesc/profiledesc.html>
>     >>
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profiledesc/profiledesc.html
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profiledesc/profiledesc.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/>
>     >>>> <https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/
>     <https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/>>
>     >>>> <https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/
>     <https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/>
>     >>>> <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>
>     >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196>>
>     >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196
>     <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196>
>     >>>> <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>
>     <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
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>
>     >> --
>     >> Karen Coyle
>     >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     >> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>     >> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>     >
> 
>     -- 
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> 
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Friday, 27 April 2018 14:55:27 UTC

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