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

Re: [dxwg] Create a use case and requirement for "central" authoritative validation rules (#597)

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:58:42 -0800
To: pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>, kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <91e4626b-5b87-ba0e-ae08-7326f6b7cb97@kcoyle.net>
Peter, I agree with this, and, due to my library background, I was the
one who brought up the idea of "authoritative profile document".
Definitely in the library world (as probably in the ISO world and
others) there will be such a document. I don't, however see how we can
do this in the PROF model which is a gathering of diverse resources with
no center. I suppose we could have a role for the "authoritative
document" but there isn't (at this time) a way then to indicate the
relationship of other resources to that document - relationships are
only to the profile. So if you have a profile with:

Authoritative PDF
Some other PDF
A SHACL file that is full constraints
A ShEx file that is partial constraints
A Schematron file that expresses the "some other PDF"

It would be necessary to be able to say that the SHACL file is full
constraints of the authoritative PDF, and the Schematron file is
constraints on the other non-authoritative PDF. But these kinds of
intra-profile relations do not exist, and I think that would be a major
change to the model. I suspect that you and I would be comfortable with
the authoritative PDF being "the" profile, and others would be support
documents. But that's not the model of PROF.


On 1/30/19 12:14 PM, pedro winstley wrote:
> https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/13222/stats21_scottish_2011_.pdf is
> the authoritative statement of the profile for road accident
> statistics.  I need to ensure that any of the recommendations we have
> for profiles can be fulfilled by a document such as this.  I also want
> the recommendation to be able to take the authority who prepared this
> profile on a journey that makes it more integrated with the data that it
> shapes, but this isn't going to happen quickly so they need to be able
> to do some things now (e.g. the identifier) and other things in due course.
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 18:41, kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org
> <mailto:sysbot%2Bgh@w3.org>> wrote:
>     I don't think this is a requirement that we can successfully define.
>     Instead, I see this as something to be resolved in the future with a
>     more complete definition of profiles. To me this is a basic weakness
>     of the model, and I think a different model would be needed to
>     resolve it.
>     As an example, a non-actionable PDF file could be considered the
>     authoritative statement of the profile, and if "constraints" (full
>     or otherwise) are expected to be actionable, then there is no way to
>     say that the PDF is the authoritative statement of the profile.
>     There also may be more than one file that is considered "full
>     constraints" (i.e. both ShEx and SHACL and maybe Schematron), so
>     "full constraints" cannot define the central authority.
>     I say we drop this entirely since I don't think we are prepared to
>     develop a more comprehensive model. The relative meaning of the
>     various resources in PROF will continue to be ambiguous.
>     -- 
>     GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
>     Please view or discuss this issue at
>     https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/597#issuecomment-459059518 using
>     your GitHub account

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2019 17:59:08 UTC

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