RE: ACTION on ALL - FPWDs

All,

My apologies for coming in late with comments.
I do have some issues with the Profiles Ontology at https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/, mainly with the definitions.

1. several definitions are substitutions in the template "A <Domain> <property label> <Range>" (e.g. "A dct:Standard has a Profile") which is not really helpful, as it makes the definitions circular (e.g. hasProfile, hasResource, isProfileOf etc.). Others still use the same words: e.g. property hasRole "Functional role of an Resource"; hasResourceRole "The role that an Resource plays". Terms like "functional", "role" and "Resource" need to be explained. Actually, from the definitions of hasRole and hasResourceRole, it is not immediately clear what the difference is.

2. Other terms that should be explained are "aspect" (in the definition of Resource Descriptor), "artifact (resource)" (in the definition of hasArtifact) and "implementing resource object" (in the Usage Note for hasArtifact).

3. Not all definitions use the same style, e.g. some have "A ..", other have "The ...", still others do not start with an article, and the definition of hasToken starts with "A property for ...". This should be made consistent.

4. The usage note of Resource Descriptor (as I wrote in GitHub, I think this is a really bad name) puts constraints (using "must" twice) on the way it is to be implemented. It might be better to formulate this as suggestions rather than obligations, e.g. "the formalism used can be expressed using dct:format and any adherence to a dct:Standard can be expressed using dct:conformsTo to allow for machine mediation. For human understanding, its purpose can be expressed via a relation hasRole to a ResourceRole".

5. Dublin Core terms are sometimes given as dct: and sometimes as dcterms:.

6. The document needs a spelling/grammar check. There are broken sentences (e.g. "Base Specifications or Profiles can have Resource Descriptors associated with them that defines implementing rules for the it"), misspellings ("GeoDCAt", "RDf", "StatDTAC-AP", "available", "summarises") and singular/plural errors (A vocabulary .. are provided"). 

I tend towards voting -1 if those issues, in particular 1 and 2 above, are not addressed, as I think these issues make the document hard to understand for an outside audience. However, because I am late with my comments, I can vote -0 if people think these are all minor issues that can be repaired in 2PWD.

I'll vote +1 on the https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/.

Makx.


-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> 
Sent: 11 November 2018 16:35
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Subject: ACTION on ALL - FPWDs

All,

We have two documents that are ready to be issued as First Public Working Drafts,[1] [2]  and we want to promote them to this at the meeting on November 13.[3] The ACTION on everyone is to READ these documents and let us know IMMEDIATELY if you see a serious problem that would keep either of these from being published. Remember that a FPWD is a DRAFT and that anything can change in future drafts. The purpose of the draft is to solicit comments from the community on the direction of the work.

You can also comment on the content of the drafts where you see the need for modifications to future drafts, and we will create github issues and discuss these, but these comments will not delay the FPWD.

We will take a consensus vote on these at the meeting. If you are sending regrets, please also let us know how you would vote on these drafts:

+1 issue as FPWD
0 abstain (but don't object)
-1 object (and give your reason in enough detail that it can be addressed)

kc
[1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/
[2] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/
[3] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.11.13
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2018 18:26:59 UTC