Re: Definitions page for Profiles

Because classes and properties are probably formalised in a specific way,
with a "standalone" artefact, a profile that binds this artefact to a given
base specification/profile as a constraint is still a profile.

The key requirement is that profiles are 'conforming subsets' of
specifications, (and are specifications themselves)

(IMHO this is a strong reason to have a strong profile model defined -
conformance for a profile would be that it _can_ be described in such a
formalism - profiles may still exist that are only normatively described in
PDF )

Rob







On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 at 08:02 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Antoine, I don't know exactly why that was the decision, although there
> is, in my mind, a practical question of what properties are needed to
> define new terms, and if those fit with the properties of a profile.
> Possibly there are also issues of IRI naming and discovery.
>
> kc
>
> On 1/9/18 12:42 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> > Hi Karen,
> >
> > You're probably going to hate me for this reaction, especially
> > considering the time we've worked together on APs in the DC community...
> > But is there a very strong reason to say that something wouldn't be a
> > profile because it originates classes and properties?
> > To me what was core was the notion of re-using other vocabularies/model
> > (it would be much harder to define as a profile something that *only*
> > originates classes and properties), but it wasn't obvious that it would
> > forbid minting own classes and properties when appropriate.
> > So if it makes things easier and this rule of thumb can be softened (if
> > it does exist), perhaps we could propose it to the DC community?
> >
> > Antoine
> >
> > On 18/12/17 15:31, Karen Coyle wrote:
> >> Andrea, in answer to #2, by the Dublin Core definition, DCAT itself
> >> would not be a profile because it originates classes and properties. DC
> >> profiles reuse but do not create vocabulary elements. A DC profile is
> >> always based on vocabularies defined (preferably in a standard way)
> >> elsewhere.
> >>
> >> That said, presumably you could create a DCAT profile that is exactly
> >> all of the classes and properties that are included in DCAT. If profiles
> >> include information such as cardinality, value pick lists, etc., then
> >> such a profile would provide information not included in the DCAT
> >> ontology.
> >>
> >> kc
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/18/17 5:05 AM, andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu wrote:
> >>> Dear Karen, dear Ruben,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for initiating this page.
> >>>
> >>> A couple of comments / questions:
> >>>
> >>> 1. I think it may be worth including an explicit reference to the
> >>> definition of "profile" from RFC 6906 ("The 'profile' Link Relation
> >>> Type") [1]. @Ruben, if I'm not mistaken your definitions are
> >>> partially based on it.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Looking at the wiki page, it is unclear whether DCAT itself (and
> >>> any metadata schema, vocabulary, etc.) is considered or not a
> "profile".
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Andrea
> >>>
> >>> ----
> >>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906
> >>>
> >>> ----
> >>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
> >>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
> >>> European Commission DG JRC
> >>> Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
> >>> Unit B6 - Digital Economy
> >>> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
> >>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
> >>>
> >>> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
> >>>
> >>> ----
> >>> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
> >>> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
> >>> position of the European Commission.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 5:11 PM
> >>>> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> >>>> Subject: Definitions page for Profiles
> >>>>
> >>>> Ruben and I have done the first set of definitions on the Profiles
> >>>> Context page [1]. You should add your own definitions and also comment
> >>>> on those that are there. This is a brainstorming exercise so please
> >>>> toss
> >>>> out your thoughts, respond to definitions and comments, and contribute
> >>>> to this.
> >>>>
> >>>> kc
> >>>> [1]
> >>>>
> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileContext#Discussion_of_Definitions
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Karen Coyle
> >>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> >>>> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> >>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
>
>