- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:14:05 -0700
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Makx, thanks. I tried to find examples of whether people are upper-casing namedIndividuals but it wasn't clear to me in the examples I saw. SKOS concepts are "things" in the examples that I see, not classes, and are lower case, so I assume it is the same for namedIndividuals which logically would be things. From the SKOS primer: ex:rocks rdf:type skos:Concept; Do we need to clearly distinguish between documents and schemas/code? This might matter in making clear the difference between role:Constraints and role:Validation. kc On 3/12/19 8:19 AM, Makx Dekkers wrote: > Again, some suggestions for the labels and definitions: > > > > 1. The URIs for the roles should probably be capitalised, e.g. > role:Example, following what I think is current practice. Should they > also be declared instances of rdfs:Class? > > > > 2. Align definitions, e.g. > > > > * Constraints: A description of obligations .... > * Example: A sample of instance data ... > * Guidance: A human-readable document that explains how the profile > can be used. > * Mapping: A description of a conversion .... > * Schema: A machine-readable description of the structure of data ... > * Validation: A description of instructions for verification of > conformance ... > * Vocabulary: A description of terms used in the profile. > > > > (Maybe even “description of” could be dropped in the definitions?) > > > > Makx. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> > Sent: 12 March 2019 14:59 > To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > Subject: Roles in PROF > > > > The group voted that roles should be added to the PROF draft to make > them more visible to reviewers. The latest working draft has the roles > there. [1] These haven't yet been reviewed by the WG, so I'm wondering > what the best way is to do that. There is a Google Doc [2] with the > roles, which may be an easier place for discussion than the working > draft. I don't know if everyone has edit privileges - I seem to. > > > > Would those who voted on this (and others who maybe forgot to vote ;-)) > want to use the doc to get consensus on the roles? > > > > Also, I note that these are not the roles included in the roles .ttl > file. [3] What is the intention here? Will the two files be coordinated? > > > > [1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/#resource-roles-vocab > > [2] > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddygq4EcKr1DzJykdhM_WxkkmTAoU1qQWsf8xuZxcKc/edit > > [3] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profilesont/resource_roles.ttl > > -- > > Karen Coyle > > kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2019 16:14:31 UTC