- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 07:54:55 -0700
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Thanks, Rob. That eases my mind considerably!
kc
On 4/26/18 11:15 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> as modelled dct:conformsTo works fine as the predicate to link DCAT to a
> profile..
>
> I had a long chat with Simon about where this fits in, and he will come
> to the F2F with a sense of its role in the wider challenge of dataset
> description. Hopefully you can resolve the best "home" for this -
> personally I don't mind and am willing to be the editor for a separate
> deliverable.
>
> Its distinct piece of work, but one that will IMHO help the "guidance
> for DCAT profiles" deliverable - as it will enable formalism of the key
> statements about profile hierarchies and different resource types we
> already see in the DCAT profiling practices.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27 April 2018 at 14:56, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/26/18 12:36 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:51 PM, Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <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>
> >>>> <mailto: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>
> >>>> <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>>
> <mailto: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/>>
> >>>> <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>>
> >>>> <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>>
> >>>> <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>>
> >>>> <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>>
> >>>> <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>>
> >>>> <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_
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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>>
> >>>>
> <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/>>
> >>>> <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>>
> >>>> <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>>
> >>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
> >> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> >> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> >
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> 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 Friday, 27 April 2018 14:55:27 UTC