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

Re: References to "application profiles"

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:13:34 -0400
Message-ID: <04d401cc65d8$15e0c12b$d71dae84@oa.oclc.org>
To: "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>, "Neubert Joachim" <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>
Cc: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
I would argue that that XML Schema is also Linked-Data-compatible as well as encompasing the notion of "record" in very precise terms. I regret that we didnt discuss this earlier. I can live with "application profile" as a rough notion, though.


Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 09:54:54AM +0200, Joachim Neubert wrote:
> I agree with Antoine here - the concept of application profiles is
> really important in library world (and bridges somehow the intellectual
> gap between traditional record oriented thinking and freely floating
> properties - OWL is no help for this). Therefore, in my eyes, it should
> be in the report.

I agree with Joachim and take Karen's point about not having the space to
elaborate on different senses of Application Profile.  I propose to continue
linking mentions of "application profile" to the Singapore Framework -- SF is
an explicitly Linked-Data-compatible notion of application profile (the only?),
and the document starts by acknowledging that "profile" and "application
profile" are used by other communities -- but to characterize "application
profiles" in a very generic way.

In the end, I pretty much stuck to the changes I proposed on Thursday,
with some additional wordsmithing:

-- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section2&diff=6007&oldid=6006
   -- Reference to "application profiles" here left untouched (looks fine, Antoine!)
   -- Clarified wording in various ways (see diff).
   -- In addition to LLD XG and LOD-LAM, added DCMI and FOAF Project (citing their joint statement) 
      to the list of advocates for alignments among element sets.

   Paragraph now reads:

       Alignments are likewise relevent for metadata element sets. As evidenced in
       the [http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/ Linked Open Vocabularies]
       inventory, practitioners generally follow the good practice of re-using
       existing element sets or building
       [http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/ application profiles]
       that re-use elements from multiple sets. Projects such as the
       Vocabulary Mapping Framework] aim at supporting alignment. The lack of
       institutional support for element sets can threaten the long-term
       persistence of their shared meanings. Moreover, some reference frameworks,
       notably FRBR, have been expressed differently in RDF, and these different
       expressions are not always explicitly aligned -- a situation which limits
       the semantic interoperability of datasets in which these RDF vocabularies
       are used. The community should facilitate the coordinated re-use or
       extension of existing element sets over the creation of new sets from
       scratch. Aligning already existing element sets when they overlap, typically
       using semantic relations from
       [http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_subclassof RDFS] and
       OWL], should also be encouraged. We hope that better communication between
       the creators and maintainers of these resources, as advocated by the
       [http://lod-lam.net/summit/ LOD-LAM initiative], the
       [http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-foaf/ Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
       and FOAF Project], and our own incubator group, will lead to more explicit
       conceptual connections among element sets.

-- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_recommendations_page_take2&diff=6008&oldid=6005

        [http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/ Application
        profiles] provide a method for a community of practice to document and
        share patterns of using vocabularies and constraints for describing
        specific types of resources.  

-- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Relevant_Technologies&diff=6011&oldid=5832
        http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/ Application
        profiles] provide a popular way to document how a community of practice
        defines a domain model and a pattern for re-using particular
        vocabularies with particular constraints in describing particular types
        of resources. 

In the latter, I share Jodi's concern about possible confusion between
"alignment" and "ontology mapping", though not enough to propose it be
re-worded on this point.  However, the detail about versions of OWL and the
inadequacies of RDFS seems a bit excessive here, so I have proposed a

        The current version of [http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ OWL Web Ontology
        Language], which provides methods for mapping equivalences across
        ontology mapping]), allows experts to describe their domain using community
        idioms while remaining interoperable with related or more common idioms. 

Received on Sunday, 28 August 2011 23:13:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 28 August 2011 23:14:01 GMT