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

AW: References to "application profiles"

From: Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:44:27 +0200
Message-ID: <3A59BB6451C972429019B12996F92DAD048FA300@frodo.zbw-nett.zbw-kiel.de>
To: "Young,Jeff \(OR\)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi Jeff, Tom,

my first idea about this was not technical at all. Even if you have only a sheet of paper with an overview, which properties are used, and about possible restrictions (mandatory, cardinality, etc) imposed on the data in the source (legacy) sytstems, this can be extremely helpful for dealing with the data. 

More real and formally validatable control is better, of cause. And as the text is phrased now, it gives the hints to the general idea, and to a formal implementation in the Singapore Framework as well (where the reader can buy in or not). 

Cheers, Joachim

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Young,Jeff (OR) [mailto:jyoung@oclc.org] 
> Gesendet: Montag, 29. August 2011 01:14
> An: Thomas Baker; Neubert Joachim
> Cc: Antoine Isaac; public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: References to "application profiles"
> 
> 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.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 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=Draf
t_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
>        
> [http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_Data_Resour
> ces#Vocabulary_mapping_framework
>        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
>        
> [http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-primer-20091027/#Ontology_
Management
>        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=Draf
t_recommendations_page_take2&diff=6008&oldid=6005
>    Added:
> 
>         [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=Draf
t_Relevant_Technologies&diff=6011&oldid=5832
>    Added:
>         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
> simplification:
> 
>         The current version of 
> [http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ OWL Web Ontology
>         Language], which provides methods for mapping 
> equivalences across
>         vocabularies
>         
> ([http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#OntologyMapping
>         ontology mapping]), allows experts to describe their 
> domain using community
>         idioms while remaining interoperable with related or 
> more common idioms. 
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 07:45:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 29 August 2011 07:45:11 GMT