W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > August 2011

References to "application profiles"

From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:23:36 -0400
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110825132336.GA3954@julius>
Dear all,

Re-reading the paragraph in [1]:

    A similar concern can be voiced regarding metadata element sets. As
    testified in the Linked Open Vocabularies inventory, practitioners
    generally follow the good practice of re-using existing element sets or
    building "application profiles" of them. And some projects, such as the
    Vocabulary Mapping Framework, aim at supporting that process. But the lack
    of long-term support for them threatens their enduring meaning and common
    understanding. Further, some reference frameworks, notably FRBR, have been
    implemented in different RDF vocabularies, which are not always connected
    together. Such situation lowers the semantic interoperability of the
    datasets expressed using these RDF vocabularies. The community should
    encourage the coordinated re-use of element sets for particular entity
    descriptions, their extension through, e.g., application profiles, or their
    alignment using, e.g., semantic relations from RDFS and OWL. Here, we hope
    that better communication between the creators and maintainers of these
    resources, as encouraged by our own incubator group or the LOD-LAM
    initiative, will help to consolidate the conceptual connections between
    them. 

...where "a similar concern" refers to "semantic links across value vocabularies".

Looking closer:

> A similar concern can be voiced regarding metadata element sets. As
> testified in the Linked Open Vocabularies inventory, practitioners
> generally follow the good practice of re-using existing element sets or
> building "application profiles" of them. 

If we mean Dublin-Core-style application profiles (as Singapore Framework is
cited further on in the paragraph), then we could say something like:

     A similar concern can be voiced regarding metadata element sets. As
     testified in the Linked Open Vocabularies inventory, practitioners
     generally follow the good practice of re-using existing element sets or
     building "application profiles" that re-use elements from multiple sets.

Then, I do not really understand the first part of this sentence:

> The community should encourage the coordinated re-use of element sets for
> particular entity descriptions, their extension through, e.g., application
> profiles, or their alignment using, e.g., semantic relations from RDFS and
> OWL.

The phrase "encourage the coordinated re-use of element sets for
particular entity descriptions" seems to be saying something like:

    ...promote the use of common patterns of mixing vocabularies for
    describing particular types of things.

However, I do not think this reference to application profiles really belongs
in a section on alignment.

Rather, I would like to propose the following:

-- That the section "The linking issue" (vague, because the whole LLD XG report is
   arguably about a "linking issue") be renamed something like:

        Semantic alignment

-- In this case, the first sentence -- "Many semantic links across value
   vocabularies are already available..." -- could be preceded with a definition
   along the lines of:

        "Alignments" are links between semantically equivalent, similar, or
        related terms or entities across different value vocabularies, metadata
        element sets, or datasets.

-- The notion of application profiles is more appropriately referenced in the point 
   about re-using patterns:

   In the paragraph:

    Design patterns allow implementers to build on the experience of
    predecessors. Traditional cataloging practices are documented with a rich
    array of patterns and examples, and best practices are starting to be
    documented for the Linked Data space as a whole (e.g.,
    <ref>http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/#htoc61</ref>). [*] What is needed
    are design patterns specifically tailored to LLD requirements. Such design
    patterns would meet the needs of people and developers who understand new
    techniques through patterns and examples and will increase the coherence of
    Library Linked Data overall. 

   I propose inserting a sentence:

    Application profiles (http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/)
    provide a method for a community of practice to document and share patterns
    used for describing specific types of materials.

--  ...and application profiles are also relevant to "data design" [2]:

    Another boost for Linked Data is the growing use of OWL for purposes of
    data design. Prior to OWL, domain experts could use RDFS to create metadata
    element sets, but there was no way to map equivalencies across
    vocabularies. Among other features, OWL includes an upgrade to RDFS to
    support ontology mapping. This allows experts to describe their domain
    using community idioms, while still being interoperable with related or
    more common idioms. A variety of tools related to OWL can be found on the
    W3C's RDF wiki and OWL wiki. Unified Modeling Language (UML) tools are also
    value to help designers represent and manipulate domain models visually.
    The Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) specification should help bridge
    some of the gaps between UML and OWL. [*]

   I propose to add:

    Application profiles (http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/)
    provide a way to specify how a community of practice defines a
    domain model and re-uses specific vocabularies in order to create metadata 
    conforming to a particular pattern.
    
Tom

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#The_linking_issue
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#Tools_for_data_designers
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#Develop_and_disseminate_best-practices_design_patterns_tailored_to_LLD
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 13:24:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 August 2011 13:24:07 GMT