W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > April 2018

Re: scope of profile (negotiation) group

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 08:51:23 -0700
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <be3114c2-abb0-5ef1-41bb-9cd3f511c07d@kcoyle.net>
I'm reading the 'profile description' offered by Rob and Nick as
'metadata about the profile'. It gives what I would consider to be
administrative and descriptive information about the profile, but is not
itself an actionable profile. The profile description links a DCAT
expression to a profile, but is not either one. Is that a correct way to
view it?

If so, it's kind of a fourth deliverable, and to my mind could be
associated either with DCAT or with the guidelines, as we prefer.

kc

On 4/25/18 2:21 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Sorry Rob my inbox had messed up with your mail :-/
> Good that we agree!
> 
> Would it be possible to have the people working on profile description
> as a subset of DCAT be also (or instead) attached to the profile
> sub-group? That would make things more natural, i.e. the 'method and
> technology' would be discussed in general not in the specific of DCAT I
> know that you are not confused when you work on it (and I think that I
> am not confused, anymore) but getting things a bit more formal and clean
> may help a bit. If just by giving motivation for the profile
> guidance/description work to progress. I.e it would exist with a
> 'client' (i.e. DCAT) waiting for its progress.
> 
> I'm also saying this because I've tried to join the profile
> (negotiation) sub-group for the first time today and there was only Lars
> and I. If DXWG creates a sub-group on profile guidance, or re-use and
> extend the profile negotiation calls to discuss guidance/description, we
> may need all the people working on related matters to be also formally
> attached to that group, in order to get a critical size.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> On 20/04/18 01:06, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>> Thanks Antoine.
>>
>> I agree with you - its a separate sub-group who should in turn empower
>> the (yet-to-form) guidance sub-group to explain how to simply handle
>> profile creation and description in a Web friendly mechanism.
>>
>>   Note that the people working on profile description are more a
>> subset of the DCAT group - but of course everyone is encouraged to
>> engage because it seems we are all touched by the need to describe
>> profiles :-)
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On 20 April 2018 at 08:19, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl
>> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     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
>>     https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc/examples
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc/examples> - 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.
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>
>>     Antoine
>>
>>     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 <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>> <mailto: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/
>> <https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/>
>> <https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/
>> <https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/>>
>>              [2] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196>
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196>>
>>              [3] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc>
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc>>
>>              [4] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/72
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/72>
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/72
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/72>>
>>              [5] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/75
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/75>
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/75
>> <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
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/198>
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/198
>> <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
>> <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette#Contributing_to_the_normative_deliverables>
>> <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette#Contributing_to_the_normative_deliverables
>> <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
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profiledesc/profiledesc.html>
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profiledesc/profiledesc.html <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/
>> <https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/>
>> <https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/
>> <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
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196>
>> <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/196
>> <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 <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
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2018 15:51:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:42 UTC