Re: DXWG Plenary: 2019-06-18T20:00:00

Rob, et al.

I'm actively pinging everyone involved in the IETF work to see what the
thoughts are on how closely it needs to coordinate with DXWG. This may
be a question that does not currently have a clear answer.

As for any thoughts of a "canonical definition" - we agreed on a
definition over a year ago [1] and much has happened since then. In
particular, we have decided to de-emphasize all deliverables except DCAT
and Conneg for the time being. Even at the time we appear to have seen
it as a working definition that could be revisited. Where we seem to be is:

- Is a definition needed needed for DCAT beyond what is already there?
- Are people happy with this definition for conneg?
- If not, do we think there will be time to revisit the definition by
the time conneg reaches CR?
- Is there likely to be a Profiles Guidance document by the end of the 6
month extension? (Note: I believe it was this document that was the
mechanism for a unified definition of profile.)

It seems to me that all of these questions should inform our discussion.
In particular, I would rather not see the group commit to a process that
cannot be resolved within the charter extension.

kc
[1] https://www.w3.org/2018/02/06-dxwg-minutes#ResolutionSummary

On 6/17/19 4:48 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> This is somewhat misguided a discussion as formulated, as the IETF
> document has no official status and the intent has always been to update
> it to reflect the IETF relevant parts of the broader conneg
> approach. The canonical definition of profile, within current processes
> and deliverables,  is the one in the conneg document, as that is
> focussed on the functional requirements for behaviour based on profiles.
> (The Profiles ontology will need to be updated if necessary to reflect
> any substantive changes agreed in the conneg document. The DCAT (and any
> other) use of profiles will by necessity be a narrower usage, just
> because they start with a more specific constraint on what is being
> profiled. So as long as DCAT, Dublin core, MIME type profiles etc are
> understood within context, and functionally covered by the general
> definition, such usages are consistent with the canonical definition and
> conneg by profile mechanisms can be used in those contexts safely.
> 
> If there is some other underlying goal or reason to have a different
> approach to setting the context for defining profiles it should be
> stated, although its really too late in the day to be introducing new
> requirements, and never useful to assert new requirements without a
> grounding Use Case. Otherwise, we have a working definition, and useful
> community feedback, and we are examining its accuracy and interpretation
> w.r.t. to functional requirements. The actual issue is whether we can
> identify any improvements in that definition. Starting up another
> process or discussion with a different scope around this is not useful
> of feasible at this stage IMHO. 
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 01:08, pedro winstley
> <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com <mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>>
> wrote:
> 
>     Yes, let's do that Karen. I will update
> 
>     On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, 15:58 Karen Coyle, <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>     <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
> 
>         Could we add a discussion of Tom's email to the agenda? [1]
>         Although he
>         focuses on conformance, I think the email rounds up some
>         important info
>         about profile definitions.
> 
>         First, DCAT has a definition (in the green note [3]) that
>         presumably is
>         sufficient for DCAT purposes.
> 
>         Second, the IETF proposal has a definition that again is presumably
>         sufficient for that proposal. [2] It would seem inappropriate
>         for the
>         conneg definition to be significantly different from the
>         definition in
>         the IETF proposal. In fact, it would probably be necessary for
>         them to
>         be the same or as close to the same as possible. (We should ping
>         Lars on
>         this.)
> 
>         Because of this, I see no reason to work on a definition of profile
>         UNLESS the intention is to continue work on the profile guidance
>         document and to develop a definition that is focused on the
>         creation of
>         profiles. That definition could be more specific as it would be
>         attempting to drive the creation of a specific concept of profile. I
>         don't think that definition would be a substitute for the
>         IETF/conneg
>         definition, and for DCAT that would be a question to be posed for a
>         future version.
> 
>         kc
> 
>         [1]
>         https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Jun/0035.html
>         [2]
>         https://profilenegotiation.github.io/I-D-Accept--Schema/I-D-accept-schema
>         [3] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#conformance
> 
>         On 6/17/19 3:31 AM, pedro winstley wrote:
>         > Dear Colleagues
>         >
>         > The next plenary meeting of DXWG will be at
>         2019-06-18T20:00:00 and
>         > the agenda draft is at
>         > https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2019.06.18
>         >
>         > The key discussion point will be to make some concrete plans and
>         > schedule for the definition document describing 'profile' to be
>         > sufficient for the requirements of the conneg and DCAT work, and
>         > discussion of how well this covers the needs of the prof
>         vocabulary.
>         >
>         > Cheers
>         >
>         > Peter
>         >
>         >
> 
>         -- 
>         Karen Coyle
>         kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>         skype: kcoylenet
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2019 18:15:10 UTC