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, 22 Nov 2017 02:59:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LyAXRW2gg7DN72FevJs8KKdexCXqDPvoko8tJkCo8thog@mail.gmail.com>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
Cc: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>, Valentine Charles <valentine.charles@europeana.eu>
+1


On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 12:09 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> OK, so it seems that what I was called "vocabularies" you are calling
> "profiled properties" and I think yours is the better term. So we are
> saying that a profile defines a set of properties (and perhaps also
> classes, in the RDF sense).* I'm not sure what a "type ontology" is,
> though.
>
> Also, a profile may use properties from a number of different
> ontologies/namespaces, not leaning especially on any one. Sometimes
> profiles are specializations of a particular ontology or community
> metadata standard, but sometimes they are bits and pieces that don't
> lean on any base set. If I combine dct:title and foaf:name and
> georef:place (I'm making this up) the end result can be a profile. On
> the other hand the DPLA "modified EDM" is a profile based on EDM,
> perhaps extended or restricted. These two examples show that profiles
> can have different relations to one or more base vocabularies.
>
> * I once again would like folks to look at the technology stack of the
> Singapore Framework [1] which may be compatible with the statement that
> a "profile defines a set of additional structural and constraints and/or
> semantic interpretations that can apply to a given document on top of
> that document's media type." If the Framework doesn't have the same
> sense as the quote, perhaps we can clarify the differences. And
> eventually I would like to talk about the concept of description sets
> [2] which is the DCMI view of profiles.
>
> kc
> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/
> And this is a shortcut to the diagram, which may be the most useful
> part:
>
> http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/singapore-framework/singapore-framework.png
> [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-dsp/ however some of the details
> pre-date general acceptance of RDF and need to change, so don't get hung
> up on how the lower levels of the model are defined
>
>
> On 11/21/17 4:26 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > Profiles should IMHO reference type ontologies where necessary to
> > further restrict the range of profiled properties (either base
> > specification or a more general profile).
> >
> > e.g. a profile for "spatial area statistics standard X" may require the
> > statistical dimension property  is related to (has a rdfs:range)  a
> > 'feature with a polygon geometry' ,
> >
> > the "US Census profile" may require this to have a FIPS code and the
> > 2020 census may require it to be from the set of 2020 US  state
> > boundaries, by reference to a specific implementation.
> >
> > I think "vocabulary" is a set of definitions in the general case, and is
> > agnostic about how much information model goes along with that set - so
> > we need to be pretty careful about assumptions as to what it means here.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 10:21 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> > <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
> >
> >     Are you referring to value vocabularies? I was thinking about
> >     properties, and in the profiles I've seen they tend to be lists of
> terms
> >     representing properties and classes.
> >
> >     kc
> >
> >     On 11/21/17 2:18 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Profiles should reference controlled vocabularies - and practically
> >     > these must be accessible via distributions such as REST API
> >     endpoints -
> >     >  - consider GBIF biota taxon vocabulary - miilons of terms and
> changes
> >     > every day. Can not embed this in a profile, or even in a static
> >     resource.
> >     >
> >     > Rob
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 09:11 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> >     <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> >     > <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     On 11/21/17 12:25 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >     >     > Hi Karen,
> >     >     >
> >     >     > I'm trying to work on it.
> >     >     > But I have to say I'm a bit lost, what has happened to our
> >     use case
> >     >     > (5.37) and requirements. At some point everything was
> >     included at
> >     >     > https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID37
> >     >     > but the requirement list seems to have been really
> >     simplified, not the
> >     >     > only requirement derived from 5.37 is
> >     >     > https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RID11
> >     >     >
> >     >     > When we contributed our use case we had listed these
> >     requirements:
> >     >     > - Each application profile needs to be documented,
> preferably by
> >     >     > showing/reusing what is common across profiles
> >     >
> >     >     We'll make sure that these get in. I do have a very basic
> >     question,
> >     >     though, which is whether you have any assumptions about the
> >     content of a
> >     >     profile. This says that it is documented, that it is
> >     machine-readable,
> >     >     that it contains validation, and that profiles can contain
> >     pieces of
> >     >     data from other profiles. Is there some statement that can be
> >     made about
> >     >     the nature of this data? Are you assuming that profiles contain
> >     >     vocabulary terms? This seems to be the missing background
> >     information
> >     >     from our requirements.
> >     >
> >     >     kc
> >     >
> >     >     > - Machine-readable specifications of application profiles
> >     need to be
> >     >     > easily publishable, and optimize re-use of existing
> >     specification.
> >     >     > - Application profiles need a rich expression for the the
> >     >     validation of
> >     >     > metadata
> >     >     > - publishers (data providers, intermediary aggregators,
> >     Europeana and
> >     >     > DPLA) need to be able to indicate the profile to which a
> >     certain piece
> >     >     > of data (record describing an individual cultural object, or
> >     a whole
> >     >     > dataset) belong.
> >     >     > - Data publishers need to be able to serve different
> >     profiles of the
> >     >     > same data via the same data publication channel (Web API)
> >     >     > - Data consumers (intermediary aggregators, Europeana and
> >     DPLA, data
> >     >     > consumers) need to be able to specify the profile they are
> >     >     interested in
> >     >     > - Europeana needs to be able to accept the data described
> >     using EDM
> >     >     > extensions that are compatible with its EDM-external profile
> >     >     whether it
> >     >     > doesn't ingest this data entirely (i.e. some elements will
> >     be left out
> >     >     > are they are useless for the main Europeana Collections
> >     portal) or it
> >     >     > does ingest it (e.g. for Thematic Collections portals or
> >     >     domain-specific
> >     >     > applications that Europeana or third parties would develop)
> >     >     >
> >     >     > I'm going to see how it aligns to your list. But I prefered
> to
> >     >     send you
> >     >     > our raw list now, so that you can have a brief look at. If
> just
> >     >     because
> >     >     > this list supports your point " Also, there are some obvious
> >     >     > requirements, like being both machine and human-readable,
> having
> >     >     > identifiers, etc., that we do not have use cases for".
> >     Valentine and I
> >     >     > wanted our use case to be a motivation for such
> requirements...
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Cheers,
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Antoine
> >     >     >
> >     >     > On 21/11/17 16:34, Karen Coyle wrote:
> >     >     >> Because we need to move to FPWD, if we can agree on the
> >     >     requirements for
> >     >     >> profiles as written here, we can amend those for the next
> >     >     publication of
> >     >     >> the UCR. We can add a note that these are still in flux.
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> kc
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> On 11/20/17 1:57 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >     >     >>> 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 :-/
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> Antoine
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> 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
> >     >     >>>>
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >
> >     >
> >     >     --
> >     >     Karen Coyle
> >     >     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> >     <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>
> http://kcoyle.net
> >     >     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> >     >     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
> <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>
> >     <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>
> >     >
> >
> >     --
> >     Karen Coyle
> >     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
> >     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> >     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
> <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 <+1%20510-984-3600>
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2017 03:00:27 UTC

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