Re: Documenting ontologies at W3C

Even if ADMS is \= profileDesc we can present it as an option so as to
give people more choices. I think it's best to show people that there's
more than one way, and to let them decide which works best for them.

If profileDesc is to be a separate "work item" then we need to figure
out how to "house it" within W3C structure. We should begin to gather
information about that since there may be timing issues.


On 5/25/18 9:06 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> I think profileDesc comes under the charter clause : 
> Other Deliverables,,
> Subject to its capacity, the working group may choose to develop
> additional relevant vocabularies in response to community demand.
> (unless it ends up being recast as a specialisation of the emerging
> dcat:Resource generalised class)
> Either way it:
>   a) needs to be described as a vocabulary using W3C style
>   b) be referenced as part of the guidance of DCAT profiles - which I
> think SHOULD be described in relationship to other more general DCAT
> profiles (and other profiled standards) using profileDesc
> ProfileDesc is far simpler and more general than DCAT guidance - so its
> going to be easist and most useful to publish it standalone then
> leverage in the guidance doc.
> I also think profileDesc can be used within the guidance doc as the
> example formalism for describing best practices around profiles formally
> identifying the nature and role of constraints definitions. 
> Overall the guidance doc should address all those requirements we can't
> hard-code into DCAT, but will use need to use additional ontologies to
> support.  For example, the issue of describing a constraint that a
> particular reference vocabulary is used in content can be described
> using RDF-Datcube, which can bind a data element to a set of
> skos:Concepts from a given ConceptScheme.
> ProfileDesc provides the vocabulary needed to discover and access
> constraint sets and interoperability of specialised profiles with their
> base profiles. At this stage no other candidate has been provided. (I
> have reviewed ADMS and it doesnt seem to cover the conformance aspect,
> and seems to be compatible with an alignment of
> prof:ImplementationResourceDescriptor in the same subclass heirarchy as
> dcat:Distribution)
> Rob
> On Fri, 25 May 2018 at 16:06 Karen Coyle <
> <>> wrote:
>     At F2F3 I asked for documentation on the profileDesc ontology. As an
>     example of how ontologies are documented at W3C, it could be useful to
>     look at the SKOS recommendation.[1] If we are to present profileDesc
>     either as the Guidance deliverable or as a non-recommendation note
>     (which appears to require a community group in which to place it) then
>     it will need to be documented using the style seen in the SKOS
>     recommendation.
>     If we decide to provide profileDesc as our response to the Guidance
>     deliverable, the non-normative Introduction area could contain the
>     outline from Lars' issue[1] modified a bit. If profileDesc is to be
>     presented as a separate work item, then it becomes a smaller section
>     within that outline. I have done a github issue[2] illustrating these
>     two options, based on Lars' initial issue. It would be good to discuss
>     pros and cons there.
>     kc
>     [1]
>     -- 
>     Karen Coyle
> <>
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>

Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Friday, 25 May 2018 08:07:22 UTC