- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 21:56:22 -0700
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
On 4/26/18 12:36 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> 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"?
I believe it is the same as what you call a "schema". Something written
in code that can be processed by programs.
>
>> 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...
>
In my mind, what you say here is what the profile description *is* - it
describes any standard that the profile is a profile of, it then
identifies (and links) to any of the expressions of the profile. What
I'm not sure of is whether there's a DCAT property that links from the
DCAT description to the profile description - that is, if DCAT and
profiles are linked through the profile description. I would really like
to see a macro diagram that shows what (if anything) links this all
together.
>> 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...
I agree. Which is why I'm asking where this profile description fits
into the the deliverables that we already have.
kc
>
> 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
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Friday, 27 April 2018 04:56:55 UTC