W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > July 2019

Re: Narrowing down profile definition choices

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 19:12:40 +0200
To: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <c7455bbe-2ff4-39c5-0725-718318f53b6c@few.vu.nl>
And adding to Karen's precision, at a different level...
Some of the discussion about adding the "may" in the definition comes from trying to capture the notion of specification/profile as it's currently in DCAT (well, one of the two notions that DCAT has) and CONNEG. So we inherit their cases, here.


On 02/07/2019 00:07, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Anything with "may" is not a strict constraint. We have a lot of
> requirements in section that read "may" and "should" but not "must".
> Remember, and this gets confusing, we are talking about the definition
> of profiles in general - any one profile could be quite specific, but a
> statement like "Profiles may provide rules governing value validity" is
> not a strict constraint on profiles. They may provide those rules, but
> if they don't, they don't.
> In checking, in the requirements document, section 6.11, there are no
> instances of MUST, and the requirements are generally worded as "can"
> "may", etc. In the profiles guidance document (which admittedly is
> incomplete) we have only one instance of MUST: discoverability of the
> profile:
> "5.1 Profile metadata [RPFMD]
> Profiles must be discoverable through a machine-readable metadata that
> describes what is offered and how to invoke the offered profiles."
> There is a note about requiring a URI for a profile as MUST, but it is
> from a github discussion, not a requirement:
> "Note
> (Antoine:) From
> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/242#issuecomment-408916364,
> Administrative metadata:
>      A profile MUST have URI (or an IRI?) identifying it. The URI SHOULD
> be an http URI
>      creator/maintainer (+ contact info)
>      date/version
>      etc"
> kc
> On 7/1/19 2:46 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>> I think it may be even more useful to try to capture what seem to be
>> missing requirements and propose a Use Case that explains what you are
>> getting at with notions of suggestions that are not strict constraints.
>> I have no objections to expanding the scope of the definition to meet
>> such needs if there is a consesus to accept such a use case, but i dont
>> think we can ignore effort and process so far and develop a definition
>> not supported by agreed use cases.
>> E.g.  i can see a value in a new property prof:followsRecommendations to
>> use in conjunction with dc:conformsTo  and a property
>> prof:makes Recommendations rdfs:range dct:Standard
>> And even prof:constrainsProperty x
>> And prof:suggestsUseOf x
>> Etc.
>> As long as we follow a procesd of grounding in agreed use cases.
>> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, 05:53 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>>      All,
>>      In order to get some traction on profile definition, I'd like to suggest
>>      that we do a very loose straw poll just to see how the group is leaning.
>>      There is a lot of discussion but only a few actual proposals, so I
>>      suggest taking a straw vote on these three proposals, which seem to
>>      cover the main directions:
>>      1) Antoine's version  of the current definition using "may" [1]
>>      2) Tom's version but with the looser list of qualities suggested by
>>      Karen [2]
>>      3) Richard's version emphasizing conformance [3]
>>      We can up/down vote these on github with the emoji's. We could limit
>>      each person to one up vote, but I think we should ask people to vote on
>>      each one, either up or down, as a way to testing the waters. This won't
>>      be a deciding vote but a view of how people are leaning today, and some
>>      folks may be happy enough with more than one option.
>>      How does that sound?
>>      kc
>>      [1] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-506436886
>>      [2] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-507129887
>>      [3] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-506438552
>>      --
>>      Karen Coyle
>>      kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>>      skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2019 17:13:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:18 UTC