W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > January 2019

Re: [profguid] Profile definition v Profile in profiles ontology

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:59:20 +0100
To: "Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park)" <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au>, "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d7ffcc23-284d-7e8e-7672-a906c329abd5@few.vu.nl>
Good point. It's done! The discussion can happen in that issue, now.


On 10/01/2019 03:40, Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) wrote:
> This discussion is interesting. Can it please be attached to the Issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/537? That issue is marked for resolution before the FPWD of the Guidance doc (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/10) which seems appropriate given the importance of getting this right in order to keep the docs in sync.
> If so, I'll leave it to Antoine & Karen to coy the content below into the Issue.
> Nick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
> Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2019 10:20 AM
> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [profguid] Profile definition v Profile in profiles ontology
> Hi Karen,
> Good questions.
> As I'm a bit hesitant to re-open the discussion on definition. Maybe the current one can be understood in a way that alleviates your doubts?
> (and that's perhaps a part of my action on aligning the view on this ;-) )
> On the cardinality aspect, the fact that a profile is a named set (singular) of constraints doesn't rule out that there can be several expressions (i.e. resource descriptors) of this set of constraints, some of which may be partial.
> On the question of mandating representations (such as the (human-readable) guidance to be a good expression of the constraints, I'm not sure we can do much. The enforcement of whatever PROF would say would have to rely on other mechanisms, as representations that play a guidance role certainly belong to a level which is not the one at which PROF operates (i.e. RDF or any other machine-readable implementation of PROF). I don't see other choice than doing a manual inspection of the representation. Or did you have something else in mind and I've not understood correctly the kind of thing you'd like to mandate?
> Cheers,
> Antoine
> On 09/01/2019 17:42, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> I don't know whether we want to re-open this, but I see a disconnect
>> between our current definition of profile and the graph structure for
>> profiles provided by the profiles ontology. Our definition was written
>> before we considered the profiles ontology as describing profiles, and
>> my impression is that we were considering "profile" to be a single
>> resource like DCAT-AP. Should we lean more toward the multi-resource
>> possibility of prof:Profile in ProfGui, and does that mean that we
>> need to have a definition of profile that looks more compatible with
>> the profiles ontology?
>> First, our definition states profile as a single thing:
>> "A named set ..."
>> which makes it compatible with prof:Profile. That's good. But then the
>> definition moves on to say:
>> "A named set of constraints ..."
>> And this is where I begin to have issues. At the moment our definition
>> goes on to say (in whole):
>> "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."
>> However, the profiles ontology does not mandate the existence of a
>> resource with either the role ":fullConstraints" or
>> ":partialConstraints", and it isn't clear to me if a prof:Profile with
>> only one resource that has the role ":guidance" would meet our
>> definition of profile. Therefore it may be necessary for the ProfGui
>> document to mandate certain content to meet the definition of "profile"
>> as we are using it.
>> In addition, nothing in our definition indicates that there can be
>> more than one resource in this "set". I don't think that the
>> one-sentence definition needs to do this but this becomes an issue for
>> the guidance document that so far is not included there. This could
>> become text for the section on Profile Description but I also think it
>> needs to be introduced earlier on in the document. This would be where
>> Antoine's revised diagram could be useful, and it may require a
>> section in the profiles definition area that talks about the
>> multi-faceted nature of profiles.
>> If we think we need to discuss this I will open a github issue.
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2019 08:59:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:45:06 UTC