Re: ACTION on ALL - FPWDs

Accepting that this is ultimately the decision of the W3C, it seems
appropriate to me to pass the document as is, and we can quickly update
namespaces if required in the publication process.

Whichever way we fall on this will be a little work that needs to be done,
so the namespaces issue will remain open.

The nub of the issue is this:

1) We have been motivated to look at profiles from the perspective of DX
2) The concept of profiles we need however is not limited to DX
applications - it is more general
3) there is no alternative, general, concept we have located
4) The profiles ontology is suitable for, but not limited by, DX scope
5) The abstract discussion originally proposed for the profiles ontology
has undergone "scope narrowing" around DX examples in order to get it "over
the line" within the understanding of the DXWG community.
6) The evidence is that ontologies defined for narrower scopes that meet a
need for a wider audience tend to get used that way regardless of initial
intent, if they are the sole option available. (c.f. DCAT  being used for
services)
7) We dont have time, resources or mandate to develop detailed examples
outside the DX scope.


So W3 would appear to have a choices:

1)  Adopt the general scope, (/ns/prof namespace) and request DXWG to
include an ISSUE around ensuring description in future drafts treat DX as a
specific case, not a limiting case.
2) constrain scope to DX and provide guidance we can include in text and
model documentation for readers to discover how more general application of
the concepts of profiles should be addressed outside the DX scope.
3) Repeat the "arbitrary narrow scope and establish future WG to broaden
scope" process, and fined a way to deal with governance and communications
challenges of managing the /dx/ namespace in a different non-dx context
4) Some other approach?

my own preference, thinking about the long term effects of decisions, would
be #1, but I'll follow the directions decided through the W3C and consensus
processes.

Rob A




On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 at 06:15, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote:

> If this is the decision of W3C, would it be necessary to rename the
> Profile Ontology to "Dataset Exchange Profile Ontology" to allow for other
> groups to develop other types of profile vocabularies?
>
> Makx
>
> Op zo 18 nov. 2018 19:48 schreef Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org:
>
>> Hi Nicholas,
>>
>> Sorry to have to correct you, but the W3C namespace policy is owned by
>> the W3C staff who need to balance current and future needs.  We have to
>> plan ahead and nurture the commons in the interest of a scalable future, a
>> cultivated garden as it were rather than a weed patch.  In this case, the
>> established precedent has /ns as the root for W3C RDF/Linked Data
>> namespaces, and it makes sense to clearly demarcate the part of the
>> namespace that is to be used by different W3C groups. The Web of Things
>> Working Group, as an example, is defining vocabularies under /ns/wot where
>> “wot” is an abbreviation for the Web of Things.  For the Dataset Exchange
>> Working Group, it seems like /ns/dx is the shortest reasonable equivalent,
>> where “dx” is an abbreviation for dataset exchange.  Whilst you are clearly
>> focusing on profiles in the context of dataset exchange, other groups may
>> have different ideas for the kinds of profiles they want consider.  Rather
>> than the rather arbitrary policy of first come first served, which is like
>> to lead to a mess over time, it seems preferable to take a more structured
>> approach as outlined above. This is all the more important we look forward
>> to a massive increase in the number of vocabularies as RDF and graph data
>> take off in commercial usage.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On 16 Nov 2018, at 21:28, Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) <
>> Nicholas.Car@csiro.au> wrote:
>>
>> We are not required to have a group identifier -it was a suggestion by
>> Dave but one that no one in the voting on namespaces favoured.
>>
>> If we go by the votes, this is resolved for the simple /ns/prof/. Also,
>> the slash URI, which was the form voted for, is my and Rob’s preferred form
>> and has recent precedence with the SOSA and SSN ontologies using it.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> *Nicholas Car*
>> *Senior Experimental Scientist*
>> CSIRO Land & Water
>> E nicholas.car@csiro.au M 0477 560 177 <0477%20560%20177> P 07 3833 5632
>> Dutton Park, QLD, Australia
>>
>> On 17 Nov 2018, at 4:31 am, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>
>> I am reminded by Dave Raggett that the /ns/ namespace requires a group
>> identifier level to avoid name collisions. He recommends that we use
>> /ns/dx/, so a namespace for the profiles ontology would be:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/ns/dx/prof
>>
>> Note that the namespace for DCAT is:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#
>>
>> We can have the slash vs hash discussion since there is no need for prof
>> to follow the dcat example.
>>
>> Would it be possible to put off the final decision for this for the
>> future, or do folks feel a need to resolve this for the FPWD of prof?
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 11/15/18 8:29 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>
>> Here's the last email in the thread, AFAI can determine:
>>
>>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2018Nov/0286.html
>>
>>
>> For the documents, that gives:
>>
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/prof
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/prof-guidance
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/prof-conneg
>>
>>
>> For the RDF/OWL namespace(s), so far we have:
>>
>>
>> http(s)://www.w3.org/ns/prof/<http://www.w3.org/ns/prof/>
>>
>>
>> I will put on the agenda to vote on these at the next meeting, although
>>
>> I know that the editors need an answer immediately. Therefore, if
>>
>> necessary please use these short names in the documents knowing that
>>
>> they could be changed (and anyone who has objections MUST reply to this
>>
>> email ASAP).
>>
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>> On 11/13/18 3:06 PM, Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) wrote:
>>
>> It wasn't actually addressed in the meeting but I agree Andrea is
>> representing the mailing list consensus.
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14/11/18, 8:59 am, "andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu" <
>> andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>    Dear Karen, all,
>>
>>
>>    I may have missed it, but it is unclear to me which is the final
>> decision about the URLs for PROF and PROF-CONNEG.
>>
>>
>>    Based on the discussion on the mailing list, my understanding is that
>> there's a kind of agreement for
>>
>>
>>    https://www.w3.org/TR/prof
>>
>>
>>    and
>>
>>
>>    https://www.w3.org/TR/prof-conneg
>>
>>
>>    respectively.
>>
>>
>>    Is this correct? If this is the case, please note that PROF-CONNEG
>> still has
>>
>>
>>    https://www.w3.org/TR/conneg-by-ap
>>
>>
>>    (see https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap).
>>
>>
>>    I'm going to create a PR to fix this.
>>
>>
>>    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 <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>]
>>
>>    Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2018 4:35 PM
>>
>>    To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
>>
>>    Subject: ACTION on ALL - FPWDs
>>
>>
>>    All,
>>
>>
>>    We have two documents that are ready to be issued as First Public
>>
>>    Working Drafts,[1] [2]  and we want to promote them to this at the
>>
>>    meeting on November 13.[3] The ACTION on everyone is to READ these
>>
>>    documents and let us know IMMEDIATELY if you see a serious problem that
>>
>>    would keep either of these from being published. Remember that a FPWD
>> is
>>
>>    a DRAFT and that anything can change in future drafts. The purpose of
>>
>>    the draft is to solicit comments from the community on the direction of
>>
>>    the work.
>>
>>
>>    You can also comment on the content of the drafts where you see the
>> need
>>
>>    for modifications to future drafts, and we will create github issues
>> and
>>
>>    discuss these, but these comments will not delay the FPWD.
>>
>>
>>    We will take a consensus vote on these at the meeting. If you are
>>
>>    sending regrets, please also let us know how you would vote on these
>> drafts:
>>
>>
>>    +1 issue as FPWD
>>
>>    0 abstain (but don't object)
>>
>>    -1 object (and give your reason in enough detail that it can be
>> addressed)
>>
>>
>>    kc
>>
>>    [1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/
>>
>>    [2] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/
>>
>>    [3] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.11.13
>>
>>    --
>>
>>    Karen Coyle
>>
>>    kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>
>>    m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>>
>>    skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>
>>
>> Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
>> W3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of things
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>