Re: [dxwg] Makx's profiles ont doc concerns

Many thanks!

First of all, I think some of the confusion comes indeed from the term 'resource'. I would suggest defining two phrases very early on, use them consistently and not use the term 'resource' by itself:
'profile resource' : an artefact that implements a profile and is the object of the prof:hasArtifact property.
'data resource' : a dataset, document or any other object on the internet, excluding profile resources.

On specific points:

2. I still don't understand "aspect - a particular part or feature - of a Profile". In my mind, the ResourceDescriptor defines the profile, not just a part or feature of it. My suggestion for the definition would be: "a specification of the profile with a certain role in a certain format" or more generic (if the ResourceDescriptor is more loosely associated to the profile) "an object associated with the profile with a certain role and in a certain format".

3. Yes, many do start with "A(n)" but the information is not on the same level. For example, I would suggest to change (prof:token) "A property for identifying this Profile for use in APIs" to "A label or name for the described profile, for example to identify it for use in APIs" and to change (prof:isInheritedFrom) "A Profile's Resource Descriptor has been inherited from a Base Specification" to "A standard or profile from which the described profile re-uses rules and constraints".
There are still properties that do not use the same style, e.g. prof:hasRole "Functional role of an Resource" which I suggest could be improved as "A purpose of the profile resource, e.g. whether it is to provide the specification, guidance or a machine-readable validation file". I have suggested many reformulations in the annotated PDF file I sent you yesterday.

5. My fault. I checked and all is OK.

7. My confusion was with the phrase "Internet resource". If I understand correctly it is the 'data resource' as defined at the beginning of this comment to which a profile is applied, delivering it in a certain way. It is confusing because the instantiation of the profile itself, the object of prof:hasArtifact, is also an "Internet resource" and a "HTTP resource"; the thing I suggest to call the 'profile resource'.

8. My issue is with "alignment", "specialized" and "resources". 
Alignment: what is that? The verb "to align" implies activity -- "to bring into line", but I don't see this here. Is it rather to express relationships instead of aligning? 
Specialized: do you mean something like 'domain-specific' or 'application-specific'? The term 'specialisation' is often used for sub-classing, with 'generalisation' used for super-classing, and I don’t think that’s the intended meaning here.
Resource: that's indeed a big confusion -- are you using it here as a synonym for 'profile' or maybe 'profile resource' (defined as the object of the prof:hasArtifact)? In your new sentence, what are "resources ... within profile"?

9. You introduce 'generic HTTP resource', but I guess this is again what I suggest to call a 'data resource'. The issue itself was about the formulation of the sentence, which in my mind is not clear, because I don't understand "generic", "profile link" and "the thing it profiles". If I understand correctly, you're addressing a situation where a client asks for data resource according to a particular profile, but the server cannot deliver it that way and instead delivers the data resource according to some other profile that is somehow more 'generic' (do we have a definition of what makes one profile more generic than another?). I still don’t understand what “using a profile link to the thing it profiles” means.

10. Yes, it is the same issue but also a problem with the formulation. My suggestion would be something like: "A client may be able to generate a request that already indicates acceptable fall-back options (i.e. alternative profiles) for the delivery of the data resource in case it cannot be delivered conforming to the primary requested profile".


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/572#issuecomment-439384612 using your GitHub account

Received on Friday, 16 November 2018 12:55:16 UTC