RE: Definitions page for Profiles

I think there is a good reason to keep the definition of properties and classes (in a namespace) separate from definitions of constraints (in profiles). Namespaces and profiles have different maintenance requirements.

I have been using the split in all my work and I have never encountered a problem; if necessary, you just create a namespace for properties and classes that you need, and then you define constraints on those new terms in a profile which lives at a different URI.

What would be the argument for mixing these different things into a single schema?

Makx.


-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] 
Sent: 09 January 2018 22:02
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Definitions page for Profiles

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_Defi
>>>> nitions
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 Tuesday, 9 January 2018 21:41:04 UTC