Re: [dxwg] profileDesc and the Guidance document

@rob-metalinkage The list of choices, 1-5 above, is important. Here are some comments:

1. dont attempt to satisfy these requirements
    This doesn't necessarily mean abandoning the profileDesc work; it could be that we recommend that it become part of a general "profiles" effort by W3C. That would separate it from DCAT and make it more visible all around. A community group would be where to place this work.

2. publish profiledesc as a Rec in the "cleanest" form (standalone) if the W3C process allows this
    I don't think "rec" will be available to us; still asking about that. I believe there is a way to do this by forming a community group, creating a note, which then is promoted to "rec track", although that would most likely take place after this group finishes its work, so it may not be possible to point to it from our deliverables.

3. publish profiledesc as a Note and point to it from the GuidanceDoc with a SHOULD and a clause that a Rec that superseded this SHOULD be used if available.
    This was one of the options that Peter and I discussed with Phil. The profileDesc note would, however, need to have a supporting community group.

4. treat profiledesc as a normative part of the Guidance Doc
     This is awkward because the guidance doc is going to be "technology neutral" - that is, it isn't going to assume any particular technology for profiles, and it is not going to be tied directly to DCAT. So having an RDF ontology as part of that doc ... doesn't really fit. (nb: This isn't a criticism of profileDesc; I have some concerns about the coherency of the charter itself.) 

5. align ProfileDesc as a module of DCAT defining a subclass of dcat:Resource under the Rec process
    Although the two are technically compatible this might make profileDesc less discoverable by users of non-DCAT profiles. So to my mind this "fits" but might be too narrow a context.



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/242#issuecomment-392428032 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 28 May 2018 06:05:09 UTC