- From: Nicholas Car via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:18:16 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
From https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/731#issuecomment-466142008 (**fellahst**): > I would like to share with you the results of OGC Testbed 14: Characterization of RDF Application Profiles for Simple Linked Data Application and Complex Analytic Applications Engineering Report http://docs.opengeospatial.org/per/18-094r1.html (section 10 is relevant to this thread) From https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/731#issuecomment-466205587 (**rob-metalinkage**): > Thanks @fellahst . > The semantic grounding here is full consistent with the W3C profiles vocabulary: > "One or more subsets of vocabularies can be used to define an application profile. The concept of Profile is defined as a subclass of Dublin Core dct:Standard. A dataset used by a given application conforms (dct:conformsTo) to an application standard. A vocabulary can be used by multiple application profiles." > The additional semantics of a "schema" seem to be the key area where this work is more specialised than the general solution. The idea of schema mappings is out of scope, but perhaps it is another resource with a different role using the qualified role metamodel of prof:ResourceDescriptor/prof:hasRole > From what I see it looks like treating a schema as an expression of the profile in the W3C profiles/dcat alignment is a special case of a dcat:Distribution, via the class prof:ResourceDescriptor. I think you could keep these classes and axiomitise a x:Schema rdfs:subClassOf prof:ResourceDescriptor - and if you want to preserve the "schema" role is could be a subProperty of prof:hasResource. > If you concur please note that here, or if you disagree could you provide a worked example using the prof: vocabulary to show where it fails to support your needs? > w.r.t. the further work suggestion : > "Metamodel for RDF Application Profiles: This ER proposes an initial metamodel for describing RDF application profiles. It aims at facilitating search and discovery of application profiles based on specific ontologies. Testbed-12 investigated an Application Programming Interface (API) for a semantic mediation service and defined an SRIM profile for a semantic registry to represent schemas and schema mappings. This work can be extended and refined to accommodate RDF application profiles, so they can be searched and discovered by registry clients and used by a semantic mediation service." > I think the emergence of a consistent but more general W3C model for profiles could be used as the basis for an extended model to support the same competency questions, and this would be a good focus for a followup testbed. > Note that I will be describing the subset of OGC published specifications that are profiles (according to the general conceptual model) using the W3C profiles vocabulary in the OGC Definitions Server - and it could easily be extended to support these more specialised concepts. From https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/731#issuecomment-469433064 (**andrea-perego**): > @rob-metalinkage wrote: >> The additional semantics of a "schema" seem to be the key area where this work is more specialised than the general solution. The idea of schema mappings is out of scope, but perhaps it is another resource with a different role using the qualified role metamodel of prof:ResourceDescriptor/prof:hasRole > I think this could be indeed a useful addition to PROF. IMO, being able to discover if mapping rules are available to transform meta/data between schemas is quite a common use case. From https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/731#issuecomment-469489973 **kcoyle**): > I'm not clear on what the OGC definition of schema actually entails, but this looks to me like the "domain model" boxes in the Singapore Framework. The OGC document says: "Schema defines the structure and constraints on a conceptual model." Which is what we often see in UML diagrams. @andrea-perego it isn't obvious to me that this definition of schema would be amenable to mappings. The mapping rules are what my community refers to as "cross-walks" - converting from one metadata schema to another. Is that what you are interested in? If so, those are often machine-readable and sometimes machine-actionable. Would you want to have a role for the conversion code itself? From https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/731#issuecomment-469869161 (**andrea-perego**): > @kcoyle , I understood @rob-metalinkage was referring to the notion of "SchemaMapping" in Section 10 of the OGC document @fellahst kindly shared: > http://docs.opengeospatial.org/per/18-094r1.html#Application_Profile_Metadata > Quoting: >> * SchemaMapping defines the transformation from one source schema to a target schema (using XSLT, Script, SPARQL rules, or other mapping languages). SchemaMappings are also modeled as specialization of dcat:Dataset. A schema mapping can have zero or more distributions that define the encoding of the schema mapping using different representation techniques (adms:representationTechnique) [10] such as XSLT or other schema mapping languages. > And, yes, I think it may be worth considering adding in PROF resources about cross-walks / mappings, with a specific role. Actually, we need two roles and/or relationships: one pointing to the source schema/profile, and the other one to the target schema/profile. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/791#issuecomment-473886627 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 18 March 2019 12:18:17 UTC