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

RE: scope of profile (negotiation) group

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>
Message-ID: <6b2207937d6a4bd796ed64132844039a@dnb.de>
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

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