Re: [dxwg] Use of "standard" (#792)

@paulwalk I remember some of the "WS-*" issues, since I was, and ma, a web service developer!

I need to be able to draw this issue to a close - to resolve something, leave it unresolved, point to future work etc. Your final words here that suggest a course of action are:

> Basically, I think that the whole business of inheritance, provenance chaining etc. should be put to one side, in favour of developing a good, understandable and efficient process for describing application profiles and then for validating datasets which are claimed to confirm to an application profile.

We, the PROF editors, do believe that PROF contains a "a good, understandable and efficient process for describing application profiles". It then also provides the hierarchy mechanism of indicating what things profiles which may or may not ever be used, time will tell! It's there if developers want it and, I guess, we'll only be able to see its utility when we have some real hierarchies present in data, but we can't make the hierarchies until we've formally characterised profiles (in PROF), hence the descriptive part of PROF...

Regarding "validating datasets which are claimed to confirm to an application profile": We've never felt that we can do much more here than identify profiles, which then provides conformance targets, and then link validating resources (SHACL etc.) to those identifiers in a formal way (via the `ResourceDescriptor` task with a role of 'validation' for instance). There are just too many ways in which communities might seek to validate datasetes. For example, [ODRL2](https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/#profile) has a detailed set of instructions about profiling ODRL2. That's for the community to define, we (PROF) just ensure that the ORDL standards & profiles are described using a "good, understandable and efficient process" which indeed the ODRL Community Group have agreed to do, see https://w3c.github.io/odrl/profile-bp/#profilevocab.

So, we think we are "developing a good, understandable and efficient process for describing application profiles" (suggestions welcome on better ways to do this!) and we include defer to individual communities for "validating datasets which are claimed to confirm to an application profile" but provide some generic mechanics around profile IDing & resource linking and we just wait and see regarding the utility of enabling hierarchies.

This may not perhaps be exactly the outcome you wished for but does it indicate we have understood your points and addressed them?


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/792#issuecomment-557960502 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 25 November 2019 02:16:33 UTC