Re: Profile definitions / DCAT update

Re profiles discussion..

As part of the work I am doing with the OGC developing a Linked Data view
of a knowledge base of specifications, profiles and supporting artefacts I
find the need to have a formal ontology to define profiles, and the nature
of artefacts that support validation and implementation of these profiles
(like SHACL documents, schematron, human readable documents, testing
guidelines, unit tests etc. I have also been discussing activities with the
Australian Government Linked Data working group, where a key concern is how
profiles of ISO standards relate to Australian Standards and industry de
jure and de facto standards, and the general desire to have formal
ontologies to back up descriptions of how such things are linked.

so, as part of the process of "define what we mean by profiles" I propose
to submit a straw man OWL model and try to keep it in sync with the
semantics of any text definitions, and propose this as an extra
deliverable, which with OGC and at least one other we should be able to
meet requirements for a rec track for this.

Have put the OGC view (based on ISO concepts)

Rob Atkinson.



On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 at 09:30 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> As we all come out of our holiday haze, it is time to get ready for some
> important work on DCAT 1.1 and application profiles. Here are two
> suggestions of mine for immediate activity - please add any others that
> you can think of, and we can discuss at our meeting on January 9.
>
> 1) Hopefully the DCAT 1.1 work can begin with a review of the
> requirements. As a "list" person, I'd probably want to create a list of
> potential additions to DCAT and prioritize them in a way that helps the
> editors make progress (e.g. easy/obvious, good but harder to define, may
> not make it). Please do what *you* think will jump start that work.
>
> 2) Before work can get underway on the application profiles deliverable,
> we need to define what we mean by profiles and application profiles.
> Ruben and I have made a start of a discussion [1] but we need more
> voices. You don't have to provide your own definitions if you don't
> want, but at least make comments.
>
> Thanks, and we'll post an agenda in the next day or two.
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileContext
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
>
>