- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 07:15:16 -0700
- To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>, public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Makx, it seems we should be making these comments on the Google Doc. Can you make yours there, and I'll make my responses? Thanks, kc On 3/13/19 1:39 AM, Makx Dekkers wrote: > As to upper/lower case, the example I looked at was the DCMI Type > vocabulary <http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#section-7> which > uses capitalised URIs for the individuals. > > > > I also thought that some of the roles are in different dimensions: > ‘Constraints’ is a conceptual thing, while ‘Schema’ is an expression of > constraints, and ‘Validation’ is a process that (possibly) uses a schema > that expresses constraints. Not sure how a mapping relates to a profile > – it seems to me that a mapping necessarily need to refer to two > profiles so I don’t understand how a mapping can be the implementation > of one profile. > > > > Makx. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> > Sent: 12 March 2019 17:14 > To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: Roles in PROF > > > > 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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> > >> Sent: 12 March 2019 14:59 > >> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org <mailto: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_WxkkmTAoU1qQWs > >> f8xuZxcKc/edit > >> > >> [3] > >> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profilesont/resource_roles.t > >> tl > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Karen Coyle > >> > >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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 <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 Wednesday, 13 March 2019 14:15:45 UTC