Re: Beginning Guidance deliverable

I would suggest that the Guidance should say that profiles need to be
described in a way that meets requirements X,Y,Z and that a suitable
vocabulary has been developed to provide a canonical means to do this in
the context of DCAT usage or other similar RDF implementations. Other
platforms may choose equivalent approaches, noting the more standardised
the profile description is the higher degree of interoperability that is
supported between the resources that conform to such profiles.

Basically, as W3C ontology (with as yet no obvious identified alternatives)
profiledesc would fit a general recommendation to use the W3C canon where
appropriate... whilst future work might offer a different solution . We
should aim to show it is fit-for-purpose for typical use cases.  The
guidance may have equivalent sections for different aspects - e.g. around
use of PROV, Datacube and other W3C we want to recommend and demystify, but
without enforcing in DCAT itself for example.





On 10 May 2018 at 21:09, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> All,
>
> As you may have understood from the previous report from F2F3, a major
> goal was to clarify the scope and contents of the Guidance document and
> create the necessary structure around the work so that we can begin to
> prepare a first public working draft.
>
> Decisions and information were taken down during the meeting in a G-Doc:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15OfNXU9AJ-cZysc7uYP-
> Gks5dDa8n2B5IN6rWa3kRpo/edit#
>
> Actual work on the Guidance deliverable will probably be moved elsewhere
> as this G-Doc is quite sketchy, but I wish to point out that there are
> key sections on the Project Plan [1] and a beginning of an outline for
> the document [2].
>
> At the meeting, Karen, Rob and Antoine volunteered to be editors on the
> document. Other editors are welcome, but do remember that everyone can
> contribute.
>
> We need to have a full working group discussion of profileDesc, [3]
> which has so far been primarily the work of Rob and Nick, and make any
> changes necessary so that it reflects the consensus of the entire group.
> The current proposal is a first draft that has been offered to the group
> for discussion and modification.
>
> Note that we have not yet concluded how to integrate the guidance aspect
> of the deliverable and the profileDesc ontology. The complication is
> that the guidance document may read much like "best practices" but
> profileDesc is an ontology. Tying them together in a recommendation
> creates a dependency for maintenance that could be problematic. While
> one could anticipate that profileDesc may be updated in the future after
> additional experience, the more general guidance content of the document
> may not need to change. Peter and I are soliciting advice from folks
> with more W3C experience to try to discover the best solution.
>
> kc
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15OfNXU9AJ-cZysc7uYP-
> Gks5dDa8n2B5IN6rWa3kRpo/edit#heading=h.bm0x3wnhiwa1
> [2]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15OfNXU9AJ-cZysc7uYP-
> Gks5dDa8n2B5IN6rWa3kRpo/edit#heading=h.cuvn3apl2413
> [3] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
>