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

RE: Roles in PROF

From: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 09:39:34 +0100
To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000501d4d978$49d0f180$dd72d480$@makxdekkers.com>
As to upper/lower case, the example I looked at was the DCMI Type vocabulary <http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#section-7>  which uses capitalised URIs for the individuals.

 

I also thought that some of the roles are in different dimensions: ‘Constraints’ is a conceptual thing, while ‘Schema’ is an expression of constraints, and ‘Validation’ is a process that (possibly) uses a schema that expresses constraints. Not sure how a mapping relates to a profile – it seems to me that a mapping necessarily need to refer to two profiles so I don’t understand how a mapping can be the implementation of one profile.

 

Makx.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> 
Sent: 12 March 2019 17:14
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Roles in PROF

 

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 < <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> kcoyle@kcoyle.net>

> Sent: 12 March 2019 14:59

> To:  <mailto:public-dxwg-wg@w3.org> 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> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/#resource-roles-vocab

> 

> [2]

> 

>  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddygq4EcKr1DzJykdhM_WxkkmTAoU1qQWs> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddygq4EcKr1DzJykdhM_WxkkmTAoU1qQWs

> f8xuZxcKc/edit

> 

> [3] 

>  <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profilesont/resource_roles.t> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profilesont/resource_roles.t

> tl

> 

> --

> 

> Karen Coyle

> 

>  <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> kcoyle@kcoyle.net < <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>  <http://kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net

> 

> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)

> 

> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

> 

 

--

Karen Coyle

 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> kcoyle@kcoyle.net  <http://kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net

m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)

skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2019 08:40:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 14 March 2019 16:33:09 UTC