W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > November 2017

Re: Requirements for profiles

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 04:14:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9Lzw9r2nrRwh7A+WfOqzZizV3n=dkEEpt+-mdO+vdX8m1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
Cc: "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>, Valentine Charles <valentine.charles@europeana.eu>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
IMHO 5.3 _is_ about profiles, in that the behaviour of a service as
described requires a number of things from profiles - such as identity and
hierarchy.

So, a server listing profiles is a service issue (and scoped to the
negotiation deliverable), but the payload of what is being listed is a
common concern to all three mooted deliverables.

Rob

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 at 14:32 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> All, I'm not sure that this requirement list is complete but it is what
> I could come up with in a short time so that we could have something to
> discuss. [Note to Antoine and Valentine: please see if I correctly
> captured the requirements from your use case.]
>
> I want to mention that I believe there may be more than one definition
> of "profile" being used in the use cases. In particular, UC 5.3
> (submitted by Ruben) didn't seem to me to be a function of profiles but
> of the connection service. There may be other such differences in the
> use cases where I'm not sure if the reference is to the profile or to a
> specific selection of instance data.
>
> Also, there are some obvious requirements, like being both machine and
> human-readable, having identifiers, etc., that we do not have use cases
> for. I did a talk at the recent Dublin Core conference that included a
> number of requirements of this nature that we may wish to examine.
>
> http://dcevents.dublincore.org/IntConf/dc-2017/paper/view/520/643
>
>
> ****
> profiles list valid vocabulary terms for a metadata usage environment
> (5.37)
>
> profile vocabulary lists may be defined as closed (no other terms are
> allowed) or open (other terms are allowed) (5.37)
>
> conceptually, profiles can extend other vocabularies or profiles, or can
> be refinements of other vocabularies or profiles (5.37)
>
> profiles can be "cascading", inheriting from other profiles or profile
> fragments (discussion at first f2f)
>
> profiles reuse vocabulary terms defined elsewhere (Dublin Core profiles;
> no use case)
>
> profiles must be able to define finer-grained semantics for vocabulary
> terms that are used (visible in DCAT APs)
>
> profiles must be able to express rules that support data validation
> (cardinality, valid values) (5.41)
>
> profiles must be able to express cardinality rules of vocabulary terms
> (5.41)
>
> profiles can contain links to detailed validation rules or to validation
> applications that can process the profile (5.48)
>
> profiles must be able to support information that can drive data
> creation functions, including brief and detailed documentation (5.46)
>
> profiles must be able to express what standards (including creation
> rules) the data conforms to (5.43) (5.42)
>
> profiles must support discoverability via search engines (5.40)
>
> profiles must have identifiers that can be used to link the DCAT
> description to the relevant profile (seems obvious; no use case)
>
> *Not covered* (because I didn't know what the requirement would be): 5.3
> Responses can conform to multiple, modular profiles (by Ruben)
>
> kc
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2017 04:15:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:39 UTC