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

Re: Requirements for profiles

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 07:48:21 -0800
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <335e810c-cdce-0ab7-cc76-b1a7d4f5b214@kcoyle.net>
Great, Rob. Can you make that into one or more requirements? - kc

On 11/14/17 8:14 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2017 15:48:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:41:58 UTC