Re: Agenda February 6

Happy to iterate over language - obviously it is not communication well
enough, because I still don't see why the ISO definition used is
fundamentally inconsistent with anything discussed. Whilst I maintain that
an explicit example is required to disprove this, I think the disconnect in
expectations is sufficient to force a rethink.

Looking at the ISO definition:

"A set of one or more base standards, and, where applicable, the
identification of chosen classes, conforming subsets, options and
parameters of those base standards necessary to accomplish a particular
function."

it seems to be that the logic  "conforming subsets" implies "structural
constraints and/or semantic interpretations" is not easy enough to follow,
so lets add explicit trigger words:

how about:

"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
definitions allows for the set of constraints may be empty, and
specifications may be profiles themselves, so that all statements about
conformance to a specification may be made using the single concept of a
profile"

too wordy perhaps, but has the explicit words we want and spells out the
logic somewhat redundantly, but more accessibly.

Note that the prime focus of this is dcat:Dataset and dcat:Distribution,
but making the domain and range explicit doesnt seem to add any value, and
experience suggests that this is an anti-pattern.


Rob




On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 at 06:53 <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote:

> I agree with Ruben here.
>
> The definition as it is now being proposed implies that a namespace
> document, i.e. a document that specifies a 'base standard' or (better) a
> 'base vocabulary specification', like http://purl.org/dc/terms/ or all
> documents under https://www.w3.org/ns/, are 'profiles'.
>
> I would rather see that we stay closer to Ruben's proposal that defines
> profiles as being fundamentally about "structural constraints and/or
> semantic interpretations" related to base vocabulary specifications that,
> in
> my opinion, should be declared separately.
>
> In an earlier discussion with Antoine, I argued that namespace documents,
> i.e. definitions of semantics, and profiles in the sense of Ruben's
> definition have different maintenance requirements and that it therefore
> would make sense to keep them separate. I personally do not see the benefit
> of lumping these two different types of things together. In practice, it
> has
> always been helpful to treat them differently.
>
> Makx.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ruben Verborgh [mailto:Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be]
> Sent: 04 February 2018 19:01
> To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> Cc: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Agenda February 6
>
> > Ruben, could you take either Rob's or Antoine's suggested wordings and
> > add what you think would make one of these acceptable to you?
>
> It's unfortunately not that straightforward to just add things to the draft
> definition.
> The definition as a whole takes a different direction than what was
> discussed previously.
>
> I think we should start with a list of things we need, and then write that
> definition, instead of retrofitting another definition.
>
> For instance, something we all seem to agree on is that a profile is
> identified by an IRI, that it describes a set of constraints that can apply
> to a document.
> None of these can be found in the current draft.
>
> Best,
>
> Ruben
>
>
>