Re: scope of profile (negotiation) group


I agree that the vocabulary should be a part of the guidance on profiles, and that profile negotiation or dcat revision are not heavily impacted by the description issue.

Or at least they should not be heavily impacted. In fact this is perhaps where we could solve the issue that Karen noted ("profile" is intertwined both with DCAT and with content negotiation): we should make sure that the DCAT and content negotiation refuse to go into the details of guidance/description of profiles and just point to another area. For example the DCAT draft should try not to include the descriptions of profiles at - at least not until the work is stabilized in another DXWG.

I guess the easiest way to do is to give a home in the group for that work - and for the one that Karen has just started on requirements.
Ideally it would be a separate, new sub-group, to make the difference clear.
However if the people working on guidance/description are very much the ones involved in the profile negotiation subgroup, it may be simpler to formally extend the scope of the negotiation group, so that it also includes profile/guidance as a second stream of work.



On 19/04/18 00:12, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> 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 < <>> 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] <>
>     [2] <>
>     [3] <>
>     [4] <>
>     [5] <>
>     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:
>      > <>
>      > Apparently there is now a wiki page that says who would approve/merge it:
>      > <>
>      >
>      > There Lars, Rob and Ruben are indeed assigned to the object of PR198
>      > <>.
>      > 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:
>      > <>
>      > 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:
>      > <>
>      >
>      > 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
> <>
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2018 22:19:44 UTC