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 16:17:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKckEu7osP2qo0ge+=DwX-kEytdzepcHXO0LPE907zGhy7LKZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
OK, when I get back to the office in a couple of hours.

Op wo 13 mrt. 2019 15:15 schreef Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>:

> Makx, it seems we should be making these comments on the Google Doc. Can
> you make yours there, and I'll make my responses?
>
> Thanks,
> kc
>
> On 3/13/19 1:39 AM, Makx Dekkers wrote:
> > 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 <kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>
> >
> >> Sent: 12 March 2019 14:59
> >
> >> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org <mailto: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_WxkkmTAoU1qQWs
> >
> >> f8xuZxcKc/edit
> >
> >>
> >
> >> [3]
> >
> >> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profilesont/resource_roles.t
> >
> >> tl
> >
> >>
> >
> >> --
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Karen Coyle
> >
> >>
> >
> >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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 <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 Wednesday, 13 March 2019 15:18:22 UTC

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