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

Re: Requirements for profiles

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:33:25 -0800
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1442fa67-27ea-5896-4840-aa42e12813cf@kcoyle.net>
I'm proposing this list for acceptance at our meeting today/tonight,
with the change that Ruben's statement:

"Responses can conform to multiple, modular profiles"

is now included after discussion.


On 11/14/17 7:32 PM, 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

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 19:33:56 UTC

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