W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > September 2019

Re: [dxwg] PROF roles and their definitions (#1049)

From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 00:17:42 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-528656071-1567729061-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
As we have seen it is difficult to resolve the nuances and difficulty in modelling roles and mapping them to all the different languages different communities use for similar things.  

I think we need to focus on the fact that resources may play more than one role (this is why properties defining role relationships are not a good option IMHO, in addition to the difficulty of nailing them all down in advance which properties need more than role identifiers)

so

0) understanding that in the _model_ roles are "qualifiers" on a relationship, seek to improve name/and/or/definition to make this clearer..

and 
 
1) bring a small number of less controversial roles into a normative documents
2) push roles where we have insufficient evidence or time to reach consensus about definition - but are needed for implementations in particular - to a extensible roles vocabulary that can be managed by a community group in practice
3) determine a strategy that roles should be simple - addressing a single aspect of the relationship, and additive to create richer semantics.
4) better describe how certain semantics are already handled by other more specific properties - such as the media-type (its SHACL or SHEx) and profiles (what data model the resource dct:conformsTo)
5) use words with existing meanings to define aspects of roles:
6) make sure we have examples for the complex cases where one resource contains multiple logical objects and performs multiple roles (such as a document that contain mandatory testable things, recommendation, guidance etc)



1) "normative" and "informative" (disjoint semantics - but may be used in combination if the resource constains both)
2) "shall" "should" "may" (to distinguish levels of conformance - a single resource may combine these - but would need to distinguish internally somehow)
3) "guidance" - the Profiles guidance document would have this role relationship with the PROF vocab!
4) "example" 

This doesnt tell us how to handle the "partOf" cases (including the "single combined validation view") - three options:
 1) propose and gain consensus and formalise names and definitions for these qualifiers (perhaps adopting something like https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/)
 2)  flag these at "at risk" in the roles vocabulary as additional qualifiers
 3) define a "closed world" semantics where there is a requirement that the set of "normative" resources define the the full set of constraints.

At any rate if needed I would recommend reading https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/ to see the same sort of patterns we are facing here and the computer-sciency terms used for them. 





-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1049#issuecomment-528656071 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 6 September 2019 00:17:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:57 UTC