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

Re: [dxwg] Profile description model and vocabulary

From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 07:59:03 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-418276435-1536047942-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Its obvious i ran ahead of the group when during UCR editing i had the opportunity (was forced to make the effort to) analyse all the requirements and think about existing vocabularies - before going on to proposing profileDesc as a straw man. So here i set out a set of propositions that reflect that logic  + more recent conversations, so we can work through and vote on if necessary, at which point hopefully we either come up with a common understanding,  or someone can propose a viable alternative, or we can all go home:

1. guidance around development and use of profiles should include, but not be limited to, profiles of RDF vocabularies such as DCAT
2. descriptive metadata needed to meet the identified requirements around profile guidance should be interoperable
3. Where possible, existing RDF vocabularies published by W3C should be used to fulfil requirements, provided these do not introduce excessive unwanted scope and complexity.
4. Where an existing RDF vocabulary within the W3C canon cannot be identified to meet one or more requirements, one may be created as per the WG charter instructions
5. The issues of a conceptual model of profiles and cataloguing of such as semantics are complementary but distinct concerns
6. The ADMS profile of DCAT is relevant for _cataloguing_ profiles
7. Various constraints languages such as SHACL MAY be used to specify profiles
8. No existing vocabulary has been identified to describe the relationships between profiles and base standards and the various specialised relationships between a profile and various representational resources
9. ProfileDesc is a "straw man" or placeholder for a vocabulary to describe profiles, without addressing the scopes of specifying constraints or cataloguing profiles. No part of its naming or model is immutable, and it may be updated as required to best meet identified requirements.
10. a profile of ADMS is appropriate for the cataloguing of profiles - this may be postulated in guidance discussions or published as a Note as appropriate.
11. The status of profileDesc as a Note or Recommendation can be addressed once its design and scope are settled, based on perceived stability and status of independent implementations.


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/323#issuecomment-418276435 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2018 07:59:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:45:01 UTC