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

My counting of these informal votes so far, after adding mine and inferring Rob’s:

PROF guidance spec:
https://www.w3.org/TR/prof-guide

+0 AI - Antoine

https://www.w3.org/TR/prof-guideance

+1 AI

PROF CONNEG spec:
https://www.w3.org/TR/prof-conneg

+1 AI
+1 NC
+1 LS - Lars

PROF voc spec:
https://www.w3.org/TR/prof

+1 AP - Andrea
+1 NC – Nick
+1 AI
+ RA - Rob

PROF namespace:*
http(s)://www.w3.org/ns/prof/<http://www.w3.org/ns/prof/>
+1 AP
+1 AI
+1 NC

No one seems to like /ns/dx/prof/

PROF Roles
http(s)://www.w3.org/ns/prof-roles/ - a ‘dash’ namespace, not a sub-namespace like /prov/role/
+1 AI
+1 AP

Still a few ideas swirling here (like perhaps prof-reference for the Profiles Ontology doc)!

Nick

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Sent: Friday, 9 November 2018 7:08 AM
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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/<http://www.w3.org/ns/prof/> (+1)
>
> or
>
> http(s)://www.w3.org/ns/dx/prof/<http://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<mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu> <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu<mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>>
>> Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2018 2:17 AM
>> To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>> Cc: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 4:19 PM
>>> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org<mailto: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:*E*nicholas.car@csiro.au> <mailto:nicholas.car@csiro.au<mailto:nicholas.car@csiro.au>> *M* 0477 560
>>>>> 177 *P* 07 3833 5632
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net

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