Re: scope of profile (negotiation) group

My own view is that a "profile description vocabulary" is a necessary part
of guidance on profiles, a deliverable we have not yet started - it fills a
gap in expression of the requirements.

I see that options 1&2 are the same in this context (because a profile is a
resource with a URI) - and possibly with some additional best practice
guidelines the proposed vocabulary could meet all the requirements in 3.

We have a definition - a model to formalise and explain, and worked
examples to test should help us understand it better.

I dont think either profile negotiation or dcat revision are heavily
impacted by the description issue - its "fine-grained semantics" - but that
support for whatever forms of short identifiers needed for negotiation
should be taken on as a requirement for the profile description language.

Rob

On 19 April 2018 at 02:06, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Antoine, thanks, this is indeed what I hope we will have resolved by the
> end of the f2f, but it could be very helpful to begin the discussion in
> email and/or github.
>
> I think what is tripping us up at the moment is that the concept of
> "profile" is intertwined both with DCAT and with content negotiation,
> but we do not yet have a clear definition of what we mean by profile. It
> may be best to get clear on that before we talk about profiles in the
> two contexts.
>
> We have a base definition [1] which reads:
>
> "A profile is a named set of constraints on one or more identified base
> specifications, including the identification of any implementing
> subclasses of datatypes, semantic interpretations, vocabularies, options
> and parameters of those base specifications necessary to accomplish a
> particular function."
>
> This is a good start but we'll need to get into more detail before we
> can resolve the larger issue that you bring up, and which I think is
> about how we scope the concept of "profile". Here's a short list of what
> I see as possible full definitions:
>
> 1. A profile is anything that meets the above definition and has a URL
> (this is essentially Lars' proposal [2])
> 2. A profile is anything that meets the above definition and has a
> (optional?) profile description (Nick & Rob's proposal [3])
> 3. A profile is anything that meets the above definition and all of the
> approved requirements [4] [5]
>
> I'll soon post something about the profile requirements which may help
> us discuss this all further.
>
> kc
>
>
> [1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/
> [2] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196
> [3] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc
> [4] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/72
> [5] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/75
>
> On 4/18/18 7:42 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> > Hi everyone (esp Karen, Peter, Lars, Rob and Ruben)
> >
> > I'm considering trying to be more involved in the profile work, but I am
> > not sure where I can fit in - and what are the responsibilities and
> scopes.
> >
> > It starts from the discussion we had yesterday on PR198:
> > https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/198
> > Apparently there is now a wiki page that says who would approve/merge it:
> > https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette#
> Contributing_to_the_normative_deliverables
> >
> > There Lars, Rob and Ruben are indeed assigned to the object of PR198
> > https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profiledesc/profiledesc.html.
> > But this ontology by Rob and Nick is not really about content
> > negotiation - it's more about describing what is negotiated.
> >
> > On the other hand, the wiki page does not list Lars, Rob and Ruben as
> > responsible of a document that shows them as editors:
> > https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/
> > Actually I'm not sure what is the scope of this document: the title
> > seems to hint that there is more than negotiation into it, while the
> > content is still quite focused on negotiation, as Karen remarked in this
> > issue:
> > https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196
> >
> > As noted in issue 196, I've tried to look through all our past minutes
> > about organizing this work, and it's still not clear whether we want to
> > have one deliverable on both negotiation and guidance, or two
> > deliverables, and whether we should progress on both at the same time.
> > And whether Lars, Rob and Ruben need help for what they are (perhaps
> > informally) tasked to do!
> >
> > Hopefully the F2F (or perhaps even an earlier call?) will shed some
> > light on all this.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Antoine
> >
> >
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
>