Re: Profiles ont namespace and profile docs short names - please respond

I agree with Antoine re the Namespace issues.

Re having a separate Roles ontology and document - I would like to see this
debated and argued - but think we should run with this as FPWD and make
sure the issue is clear.

One other argument is around OWL "punning" -

we could have key Roles as subclasses in the ontology, but have a SKOS
Concept Scheme with roles, including the skos:Concept instance of the
classes in the ontology.

implementers could choose to stick with class-only and declare sub-classes
for new roles, or use the Roles concept scheme.



On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 00:29, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> It's hard to jump in when there are so many things flying around, but I
> guess it's a good sign for our discussion :-)
>
> My two cents on various points
>
> - +1 for not having /dx/ in the path, if possible
>
> + +1 for TR/prof-conneg and TR/prof-guide, though I think prof-guidance
> would also be fine for the latter.
>
> - -1 for having 'prof-ont' anywhere if we have 'prof' somewhere else for
> the ontology itself. People could be confused getting the distinction
> between them. So I would vote for having ns/prof for the ontology and
> TR/prof for the document, or ns/prof-ont and TR/prof-ont, or ns/prof and
> something that makes it clear that it's not an ontology file, maybe
> TR/prof-reference (like TR/skos-reference).
>
> - in line with the discussion at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/536,
> I don't see the point for a separate role spec for the moment, so I would
> be for having everything in one file for now. And according to this I'm
> incline to have a dash namespace for now. We're in FPWD, we can still make
> our life complex a bit later, once we've seen a good motivation for it.
>
> Best,
>
> Antoine
>
> On 08/11/2018 10:07, andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu wrote:
> > Hi, Nick.
> >
> > Please see my comments inline.
> >
> >> There is no requirement for semantic web namespaces for the profile
> >> documents, other than the Ontology (and any child vocabs) and the
> originally
> >> proposed short codes /TR/prof-ont, /TR/prof-conneg etc fit the W3C
> patterns
> >> for related documents like PROV which uses /TR/prov-o, /TR/prov-dm etc.
> >
> > Thanks, Nick. So, to summarise, we should have:
> >
> > PROF guidance spec:
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/prof-guide
> >
> > PROF CONNEG spec:
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/prof-conneg
> >
> > PROF voc spec:
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/prof (+1)
> > or
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/prof-ont (0)
> >
> > PROF namespace:*
> >
> > http(s)://www.w3.org/ns/prof/ (+1)
> >
> > or
> >
> > http(s)://www.w3.org/ns/dx/prof/ (-1)
> >
> > * About the http / https dilemma, I don't remember if there's a specific
> W3C namespace policy we can follow.
> >
> >>> I'm still a bit concerned ... about the use of slash namespaces until
> we know
> >> some more details on how they will be maintained on the W3C side
> >> Yes, we are asking for something new. At this stage, I propose to
> publish the
> >> vocab RDF as a single file so the slash URIs for them would operate
> just as
> >> hash URIs typically do, redirecting all to a single document. However,
> if, in
> >> the future, a vocab management tool is implemented, the slash URIs could
> >> direct to an API that returns different results.
> >>
> >> The Australian Govt LD WG recently implemented a slash URI
> >> implementation of a static vocab in RDF & HTML  where individual URIs
> >> redirect to individual Concept and Concept Schema files, see:
> >>
> >> http://linked.data.gov.au/def/reg-status/statusScheme
> >> http://linked.data.gov.au/def/reg-status/accepted
> >> http://linked.data.gov.au/def/reg-status/deprecated
> >>
> >> This is a re-implementation of the Registry Ontology's Statuses as a
> >> vocabulary.
> >>
> >> The total config is still a snippet of Apache config and then files
> (static files)
> >> to handle the results (RDF & HTML files) however, once established, the
> URI
> >> could redirect to a vocab tool, rather than just static files, if one
> was
> >> implemented.
> >>
> >> Here is the total Apache config:
> >>
> >>         # http://linked.data.gov.au/def/reg-status
> >>         RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^_format=text/turtle$
> >>         RewriteRule ^/def/reg-status(.*)$
> >> http://www.linked.data.gov.au/def/reg-status$1.ttl?  [R=302,L]
> >>         RewriteCond %{HTTP:Accept} text/turtle [NC]
> >>         RewriteRule ^/def/reg-status(.*)$
> >> http://www.linked.data.gov.au/def/reg-status$1.ttl  [R=302,L]
> >>         RewriteRule ^/def/reg-status.ttl$
> >> http://www.linked.data.gov.au/def/reg-status.ttl  [R=302,L]
> >>         RewriteRule ^/def/reg-status(.*)$
> >> http://www.linked.data.gov.au/def/reg-status$1 [R=302,L]
> >
> > Thanks for sharing this, Nick.
> >
> > My concern is that, in the absence of a registry (and, as far as I know,
> there's nothing similar hosted in W3C space), we need to have the master
> file (i.e., the full voc) and the files corresponding to all its "children"
> (i.e., the single terms defined in the voc) in a prof/ subfolder. I would
> not be easy to maintain them and ensure their consistency.
> >
> >>> I'm aware only of hash namespaces, and of vocabularies published as
> single
> >> physical files
> >> There are many vocabs published from APIs, see:
> >>
> >> https://vocabs.ands.org.au/search/#!/?q=geo&p=1 - a portal indicating
> many
> >> vocabs
> >> http://data.naa.gov.au/ - a single vocab published using the PoolParty
> server
> >> http://registry.it.csiro.au/_def -  the registry of many vocabs,
> maintained by
> >> Simon
> >
> > Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant is that all the vocs *in W3C space*
> I'm aware of use hash namespaces and are published as single physical
> files. I wonder whether I'm wrong: in such a case, we could of course see
> how people have published them.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Andrea
> >
> >> Nick
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2018 2:17 AM
> >> To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> >> Cc: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> >> Subject: RE: Profiles ont namespace and profile docs short names -
> please
> >> respond
> >>
> >> Karen, I'm a bit afraid of going this way, and have a too deep
> hierarchy which,
> >> on the other hand, may not exactly reflect the conceptual relationships
> >> between vocabularies / specs.
> >>
> >> In particular, I'm concerned about making the prof voc , prof-guide,
> prof-
> >> conneg (and its IETF companion) as different facets of the *same*
> conceptual
> >> entity (profile?). They are indeed related, but I would not reflect
> their
> >> relationship in the URI pattern (following the BP to avoid putting (too
> much)
> >> semantics in identifiers). I think it is preferable they be
> "independent" -
> >> which would make also their maintenance easier. For these reasons, I
> think
> >> the original proposal (prof, prof-guide, etc.) is more fit.
> >>
> >> On a related note, I'm still a bit concerned (despite the discussion at
> the f2f)
> >> about the use of slash namespaces until we know some more details on how
> >> they will be maintained on the W3C side. I'm aware only of hash
> >> namespaces, and of vocabularies published as single physical files
> (possibly
> >> in different formats). Of course, it may be just my ignorance.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Andrea
> >>
> >>
> >> ----
> >> 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: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 4:19 PM
> >>> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Profiles ont namespace and profile docs short names -
> >>> please respond
> >>>
> >>> Alejandra has a good point here. While "/dx/prof/" is nicely compact,
> >>> we actually have 3 "prof" deliverables. Alejandra suggests "prof-ont".
> >>> I suppose we could also consider
> >>>
> >>> /dx/prof/ont( or even ontology)
> >>> /dx/prof/guide
> >>> /dx/prof/conneg
> >>>
> >>> The nice thing about this is that it sets a pattern for other
> >>> profile-related work, which Nick also mentions below.
> >>>
> >>> kc
> >>>
> >>> On 11/7/18 6:22 AM, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 07/11/2018 13:55, Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> NAMESPACE
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The namespace proposed for the Profiles Ontology by Dave Raggett as
> >>>>> likely easy for the W3C to manage is:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.w3.org/ns/dx/prof/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The /dx/ indicates this WG. Please note this is a slash URI, as
> >>>>> opposed to a hash URI, to allow for sub-namespaces, should they be
> >>> needed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I recommend we adopt this namespace.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PROFILE DOCS
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The short codes informally in use for the profile documents are:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> prof-guide - Profile Guidance
> >>>>>
> >>>>> conneg-by-ap - Content Negotiation by Profile
> >>>>>
> >>>>> prof-ont - Profiles Ontology
> >>>>>
> >>>> So, what is the proposal 'prof' (as in the namespace above) or
> >>>> 'prof-ont' as here?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> prof-ietf - IETF draft (used in references only, not in doc names)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I recommend changing the conneg-by-ap to prof-conneg for "prof-"
> >>>>> consistency, and the rest staying as they are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 to changing conneg-by-ap to prof-conneg
> >>>>
> >>>> I guess you will also change the folder in github to reflect this,
> >>>> once these names are decided.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Alejandra
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please could WG members with any suggestions for these proposals
> >>> weigh
> >>>>> in via replies to this email before next week's plenary meeting?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nick
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *Nicholas Car*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Senior Experimental Scientist/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> CSIRO Land & Water
> >>>>> 41 Boggo Road, Dutton Park, QLD 4102, Australia
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *E*nicholas.car@csiro.au <mailto:nicholas.car@csiro.au> *M* 0477 560
> >>>>> 177 *P* 07 3833 5632
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Karen Coyle
> >>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> >>> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> >>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>