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

Re: Requirements for profiles

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:57:25 +0100
To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>, Valentine Charles <valentine.charles@europeana.eu>
Message-ID: <3ef313a3-4122-eae5-e569-8172e8dde828@few.vu.nl>
Hi Karen, all,

Sorry I wanted to do this today but I will probably won't have time, also seeing that a considerable thread has appeared after your initial email and will probably require reading...
I'll try to do this week, though reorganization at Europeana is keeping me busy.

Very likely regrets for tomorrow by the way :-/


On 15/11/17 04:32, Karen Coyle 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
Received on Monday, 20 November 2017 21:58:08 UTC

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