Re: Profile Guidance roundup

Note about dct:Standard and more:

The DC terms definition of dct:Standard was NOT changed, precisely
because it would have narrowed the definition and rendered some current
data invalid.

But more significantly, DC is moving toward the use of defining domains
and ranges of DC terms as being the semantic equivalent of schema.org's
"domainIncludes" "rangeIncludes". This is in recognition of the reality
that many uses of DC terms are working with legacy data that predates
the use of IRIs. Domains and ranges thus become recommendations or best
practices, but are not constraints.

On 7/15/18 5:21 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> 
> Thanks for doing this Karen - its very helpful.
> 
> A couple of suggestions and notes: (i'll leave you to edit it unless you
> ask me to)
> 
> 1) I think Andrea's effort to list a few different constraint languages
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Zty4jTzhG0_1xoJlDOMq1XeHelIwVP2-STw6_-_ZxR4/edit#gid=0 is
> significant - it pretty much evidences that there is no single
> constraint language to rule them all. IMHO this needs to be part of the
> guidance - to choose the most appropriate constraint language for your
> community..

Yes, I'll add this as a section (or paragraph) on constraint languages.
I assume (at the moment) that constraint LANGUAGEs are optional and
potentially outside of the application profile itself, but represent a
direction that APs should be moving toward, either as the AP language or
as a separate representation of AP-defined constraints.

kc

> 
> 2) apropos the list of "data models" - Antoine's model is i think an
> early attempt to render the profiledesc concepts being proposed -
> (correct me if i'm wrong) - and it is in any way the same data model
> that is expressed more formally in profiledesc.
> Stephane's model has a different scope - it addresses the much broader
> topic of schema mapping - if you split out the profile description part
> it is trivially consistent with profiledesc, and reinforces its role and
> design - a profile subclasses dcterms:Standard - though this is at risk
> if DC tightens definitions of dcterms:Standard in a non-backward
> compatible way. 
> 
> I havent located the reference (i think from you) to the proposed
> redefinition of dct:Standard - if this is indeed a possibility then can
> you drop in a link under the data models section - or perhaps we need to
> reopen https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/152 
> 
> Rob
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 02:42 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
> 
>     As promised on the call yesterday, I've added a wiki page[1] based on my
>     own list-making relating to the profile guidance document. It attempts
>     to gather in one place various decisions and contributions so that it is
>     easier to see where we are in that work. I started it because it felt to
>     me that our work in this area is pretty scattered, although I think
>     that's in a sense the nature of starting a new document that we haven't
>     fully defined as yet. As I also said yesterday, this is far, far from
>     complete, but I'll keep working on it, as should others.
> 
>     I'd like to keep this as a list of pointers, so discussion should take
>     place elsewhere, mainly github. We can link to the discussions from here
>     so there is a "one-stop" place to find links.
> 
>     I've added it to the main wiki page under Profiles for the moment.
> 
>     Let me know if this looks useful.
> 
>     kc
>     [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileRoundup
>     -- 
>     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>
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Monday, 16 July 2018 15:18:53 UTC