RE: Review of FPWD Profiles Ontology

An additional editorial comment:

Sections 1.1 & 1.2 does not comply with the W3C ReSpec template: they should be merged into a specific section, about conformance, where the conformance boilerplate will be automatically added (whereas now it is hard-coded) - see: https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/conformance . For consistency with the DCAT spec, the conformance section may be placed just after the namespaces section, as Section 3.

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: PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA)
>Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 9:48 AM
>To: W3C Dataset Exchange WG
>Subject: Review of FPWD Profiles Ontology
>
>Dear all,
>
>I just finished reviewing the PROF specification
>(https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/, 8 Nov 2018). I include below my
>comments:
>
>I think it is quite clear that the vocabulary still includes unstable terms, and
>that there are parts of the conceptual schema which are yet to be
>consolidated. However, I don't think this should prevent the publication of
>the specification. On the contrary, this may trigger useful feedback on the
>issues under discussion.
>
>So, this is a +1 from me.
>
>Said that, there are some editorial issues (listed at the end of this mail) that,
>IMHO, may be worth fixing before going out. At least for some of them I'll
>create the relevant PRs.
>
>Coming back to the non-editorial issues, and considering we don't have much
>time left, it would be probably useful to consider the approach adopted for
>the Spatial Data on the Web BPs, and mentioned by Jeremy Tandy during the
>last F2F, i.e., scheduling a new release every 3-4 weeks, each addressing a
>small set of specific issues. This way, the discussion could be more focussed
>and effective.
>
>E.g., for the next release, the plan could be to decide whether
>prof:BaseSpecification and prof:token should be in or out. And maybe a
>couple of other issues might be added.
>
>Of course, this does not prevent any decision from being revisited in a later
>stage.
>
>Thanks, and congratulations to the editors for the work done!
>
>Andrea
>
>----
>
>0. The document on GH is said to be a "W3C First Public Working Draft". This
>needs to be changed: all documents on GH are of type "W3C Editor's Draft"
>(see, e.g., https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/). The change of type into FPWD
>will be done when the document is moved to TR space. BTW, also the Profile
>Guidance and  Content Negotiation by Profile documents have the same
>problem.
>
>1. Implementation report: Better move it to the DXWG wiki space, and
>possibly link to the current GH repo there.
>
>2. [PROF-GUIDE] & [PROF-CONNEG]: The links point to TR space, but the
>documents are not (yet) there.
>
>3. "Dublin Core metadata vocabulary [DCAP]": Replace with "Dublin Core
>Application Profiles guidelines (DCAP) [DCAP]"
>
>4. Inconsistent namespace prefix used for DCMI Terms (sometimes dcterms: ,
>sometimes dct:). BTW, I would suggest we use consistent prefixes across all
>DXWG specs for clarity's sake. As far as DCMI Terms is concerned, and looking
>at the current statistics in our documents, I have the impression that dct:
>wins.
>
>5. Section 1.1 says:
>
>[[
>1.1 Compliance with this Document
>
>For the purpose of compliance, the normative sections of this document are
>Section 1.1, Section 1.2, Section 5,Section 6 & Section 7
>]]
>
>- The pointer to Section 1.1 looks recursive: is this intentional?
>- Section 7 starts by saying it is not normative (which is in conflict with what
>said in Section 1.1)
>
>6. Section 3 starts with:
>
>[[
>Until this ontology, there was no formal W3C method for describing the
>objects (Internet resources) related to profiles.
>]]
>
>- This statement is quite generic, and it may be argued that it is not accurate.
>E.g., with the current vocabularies I can specify who is the publisher / author
>of a profile, to which standard / specification a profile conforms to. Also, I
>don't understand what "W3C method" should mean: the issue is whether a
>method exists or not, we are not creating one to fill a gap in W3C specs
>- I suggest replacing "the objects (Internet resources)" with "the resources"
>
>7. Section 6.3:
>
>[[
>This may not be a useful class: documents of any specification can be
>regarded as a trivial profile, so applications only need to be concerned with
>Profile conformance
>]]
>
>This should be better placed into an .ednote. A vocabulary term associated
>with a statement saying "This may not be a useful class" should not be
>included in the vocabulary.
>
>8. Section 9.2 (Alignment with ADMS): This section has no content. The
>relevant issue could be included: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/240

>
>9. It may be worth adding also a section about VOAF, whose
>relationships/alignment with PROF has been discussed. Also here, the
>relevant issue can be included: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/235

>
>----
>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.

Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2018 10:26:49 UTC