- From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 07:36:53 +0000
- To: "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:51 PM, Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] wrote:
> 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.
What exactly is 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?
I'm not sure I agree here. I thought what Rob and Nicholas have worked out links a "Profile" to a "Standard" it's a profileOf, and then it links the "Profile" to an "ImplementationResourceDescription" that describes things like XML Schemas or ShEx Documents that implement the "Profile". But maybe I got things mixed up again...
> 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.
I think we should be careful not to commit ourselves to too many deliverables...
Best,
Lars
> 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_normativ
> e_deliverables>
> >>
> <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette#Contributing_to_the_normativ
> e_deliverables
> >>
> <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/GitHub_etiquette#Contributing_to_the_normativ
> e_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 Thursday, 26 April 2018 07:37:29 UTC