- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 20:23:06 +0200
- To: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Hi,
My holiday schedule makes me unlikely to be able to attend tonight's call so I will try to react here...
I would tend to put the description of profile as formalized by Simon and Rob into the profile guidance. agree with Rob that it would help define it, but actually it will help so much that I think it should be part of it. It will formalize what is expected from a profile (machine-actionable description, human readable one, homepage, base vocabularies, etc). Note that I'm not saying that it would specify all these things, but it would act as the 'hub' to refer to them. And de facto give the guidance that all these things would be expected to exist, as part of what a profile should give to its users.
I hope I'm making sense.
And I would be willing to contribute to this too.
Antoine
On 27/04/18 16:54, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2018 18:24:06 UTC