- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:07:17 +0100
- To: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Hi, Trying to relate to some context - and test whether I've understood it right :-) I think that what Rob refered to as 'type ontology' corresponds to a kind of 'value vocabulary' that Karen and Makx mentioned. Btw these 'value vocabularies' were used in the Library Linked Data W3C group, e.g. https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld-20111025/#Appendix_A:_An_inventory_of_existing_library_Linked_Data_resources there was also 'metadata element sets' mentioned there, which imo correspond to Rob's 'profile properties' - btw as Karen pointed out, this name is tempting, but in a Linked Data context it is confusing as it sets asides RDF Classes, which are an important elements of vocabularies used in profiles. Antoine On 22/11/17 09:37, Rob Atkinson wrote: > dcat:theme would be the "profiled property" in this case > > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 18:40 <mail@makxdekkers.com <mailto:mail@makxdekkers.com>> wrote: > > __ __ > > I am not entirely sure how this fit in the discussion here, but the European DCAT-AP profile does cover value vocabularies. For example, it says that for the values of dcat:theme a conformant implementation MUST use a value from the Publications Office MDR Data theme NAL (http://publications.europa.eu/mdr/authority/data-theme/). ____ > > __ __ > > Would that still be in your definition of a ‘profiled property’ or would this be a different kind of profile?____ > > __ __ > > Makx.____ > > __ __ > > *From:*Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au <mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au>] > *Sent:* 22 November 2017 04:00 > *To:* kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> > *Cc:* Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au <mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au>>; Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>>; public-dxwg-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>; Valentine Charles <valentine.charles@europeana.eu <mailto:valentine.charles@europeana.eu>> > *Subject:* Re: Requirements for profiles____ > > __ __ > > +1____ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 12:09 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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> > > <mailto: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>> > > > <mailto: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>> > > <mailto: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 <tel:+1%20510-984-3600> <tel:+1%20510-984-3600> > > <tel:+1%20510-984-3600> > > > > > > > -- > > 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 <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 <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>____ >
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2017 10:07:49 UTC