- From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:38:46 +1100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACfF9LzuyJmpYsaLpmjc-WRw-kNYzxKxRG4H63+XcnBuW0=SPw@mail.gmail.com>
I suppose you could say if its about the Web its automatically about data exchange.. but thats perhaps another reason not to confuse it with an extra /dx/ :-) On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 05:47, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > +1 for passing the document as is and fix namespace later, if we're not > the ones setting it up. > Actually my question to Dave would be then on whether we need apply the > 'dx' prefix to our document too. I would find it a bit inconsistent to have > to use /ns/dx/prof as namespace and still be able to claim /TR/prof for the > documentation. > > (and on the side scoping discussion, I think I'm fine having a 'data > exchange' scope, as pretty much everything is about data exchange exchange. > I'm counting internal data usage as a kind of exchange, even if it's > internal to an organization) > > Antoine > > On 18/11/2018 22:58, Rob Atkinson wrote: > > > > 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 > <mailto: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 <mailto: > 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:nicholas.car@csiro.au> M 0477 > 560 177 <tel:0477%20560%20177> P 07 3833 5632____ > >> Dutton Park, QLD, Australia > >> > >> On 17 Nov 2018, at 4:31 am, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net > <mailto: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>/< > 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 <mailto: > andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>" <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu <mailto: > 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] > >>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2018 4:35 PM > >>>>> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> > http://kcoyle.net <http://kcoyle.net/> > >>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal) > >>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Karen Coyle > >>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net > <http://kcoyle.net/> > >>> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal) > >>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 > >>> > > > > Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>> > http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett > > W3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of things > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 19 November 2018 21:39:36 UTC