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

Re: Roles in PROF

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:14:05 -0700
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <b806e789-bb45-183f-c88b-33c7011d479e@kcoyle.net>
Makx, thanks. I tried to find examples of whether people are
upper-casing namedIndividuals but it wasn't clear to me in the examples
I saw. SKOS concepts are "things" in the examples that I see, not
classes, and are lower case, so I assume it is the same for
namedIndividuals which logically would be things.

From the SKOS primer:

ex:rocks rdf:type skos:Concept;

Do we need to clearly distinguish between documents and schemas/code?
This might matter in making clear the difference between
role:Constraints and role:Validation.

kc

On 3/12/19 8:19 AM, Makx Dekkers wrote:
> Again, some suggestions for the labels and definitions:
> 
>  
> 
> 1. The URIs for the roles should probably be capitalised, e.g.
> role:Example, following what I think is current practice. Should they
> also be declared instances of rdfs:Class?
> 
>  
> 
> 2. Align definitions, e.g.
> 
>  
> 
>   * Constraints: A description of obligations ....
>   * Example: A sample of instance data ...
>   * Guidance: A human-readable document that explains how the profile
>     can be used.
>   * Mapping: A description of a conversion ....
>   * Schema: A machine-readable description of the structure of data ...
>   * Validation: A description of instructions for verification of
>     conformance ...
>   * Vocabulary: A description of terms  used in the profile. 
> 
>  
> 
> (Maybe even “description of” could be dropped in the definitions?)
> 
>  
> 
> Makx.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> Sent: 12 March 2019 14:59
> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Roles in PROF
> 
>  
> 
> The group voted that roles should be added to the PROF draft to make
> them more visible to reviewers. The latest working draft has the roles
> there. [1] These haven't yet been reviewed by the WG, so I'm wondering
> what the best way is to do that. There is a Google Doc [2] with the
> roles, which may be an easier place for discussion than the working
> draft. I don't know if everyone has edit privileges - I seem to.
> 
>  
> 
> Would those who voted on this (and others who maybe forgot to vote ;-))
> want to use the doc to get consensus on the roles?
> 
>  
> 
> Also, I note that these are not the roles included in the roles .ttl
> file. [3] What is the intention here? Will the two files be coordinated?
> 
>  
> 
> [1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/#resource-roles-vocab
> 
> [2]
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddygq4EcKr1DzJykdhM_WxkkmTAoU1qQWsf8xuZxcKc/edit
> 
> [3] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profilesont/resource_roles.ttl
> 
> --
> 
> Karen Coyle
> 
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
> 
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> 
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2019 16:14:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 20 March 2019 21:59:27 UTC