- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 02:40:27 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
If you have multiple specifications, and other things like recommendations you want to make statements about, then you simply have to identify them. so happy to leave it up to communities to decide how thier "profiles" conform to a clear functional definition - rather then blur the definition to try to catch all cases. in practical terms the intention is to have a valid object for the usage of the predicate dct:conformsTo that makes sens in DCAT and other contexts. The goal is to provide a way for communities that have clear requirements to make statements about them in an interoperable fashion. That said, you raise a valid concern that such profiles do exist and have utility, but have not been modelled this explicilty. I think the solution lies in providing guidance to such communities as to how to reference their information resources in an unambiguous way. I think that a convention like "if my document contains a set of mandatory requirements then we regard that as the specification" fits in quite well with conneg by AP - you could ask for the SHACL profile of a profile document or the text (we'd need to have a name for that) Maybe we could mint a special identifier for a profile that describes such documents, so people can reuse that... If we define"canonical profile" identifiers which can be applied to "specifications embedded in documents without explicit identifiers" does it help? (at the risk of confusing people who find it hard to untangle that a specification is also an information resource, and as such can also conform to a profile ) e.g. prof:SpecificationDocument a prof:Profile ; rdfs:comment "A document that contains a single or clearly identified main set of requirements that can be used as a specification. This applies to the mandatory requirements in the document. Content negotiation by profile may be used to access specific components. If multiple such specifications exist these need to be separately identified. . prof:Requirements a prof:Profile; rdfs:comment "The mandatory requirements in a specification document". prof:Recommendations a prof:Profile; rdfs:comment "The set of recommendations defined in a specification document". prof:conformsToRecommendations rdfs:subPropertyOf dct:conformsTo; rdfs:comment "conforms to non-mandatory recommendations in a target specification. dct:conformsTo is by convention assumed to mean conforms to strict mandatory requirements only. ". -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/990#issuecomment-511080940 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 13 July 2019 02:40:29 UTC