W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Towards a stable proposal for Vocab conformance in BP doc

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 12:28:44 +0100
Message-ID: <51824DEC.5070302@w3.org>
To: Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>
CC: Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ghislain,

This is almost right in my view but I don't think it's right to talk 
about mandatory terms. That's the job of an application profile. So, I 
suggest the following:

A data interchange, however that interchange occurs, is conformant with 
a vocabulary if:

- it is within the scope and objectives of the vocabulary;

- all classes and properties defined in the vocabulary are used in a way 
consistent with the semantics declared in its specification;

- it does not use terms from other vocabularies instead of ones defined 
in the vocabulary that could reasonably be used.

A conforming data interchange:

- may include terms from other vocabularies;
- may use a non-empty subset of terms from the vocabulary.

A vocabulary profile is a specification that adds additional constraints 
to it. Such additional constraints in a profile may include:

- a minimum set of terms that must be used;
- classes and properties not covered in the vocabulary;
- controlled vocabularies or URI sets as acceptable values for properties.

This is, I think consistent with all the vocabs we have although they 
may add other constraints as well. But as a general abstraction, I hope 
this is OK?


On 25/04/2013 18:44, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:
> Hi Phil, all
> Just to follow up re vocab conformance statement to be included in BP
> document.
> This proposal is based on what we have on DCAT spec (conformance
> section) that I tried to be more generic.  As you mentioned on the call
> today, this one sees to be an old version when we were debating back to
> September, 2012. [1]
> ### Proposal for Vocabulary conformance ###
> [[
> A set of classes and properties *conform* to a {GIVEN-VOCAB} if:
> It reuses *all* the mandatory terms defined.
> It follows entirely the scope and objectives of the {GIVEN-VOCAB} .
> The contents of all metadata fields that are included in the RDF
> description, are expressed using the appropriate classes and properties
> from the {GIVEN-VOCAB}, except where no such class or property exists.
> All classes and properties defined in {GIVEN-VOCAB} are used in a way
> consistent with the semantics declared in its specification.
> {GIVEN-VOCAB}-compliant may include additional non-{GIVEN-VOCAB}
> metadata fields and additional RDF data in the RDF description.
> A profile for the {GIVEN-VOCAB}  is a specification fthat adds
> additional constraints to it .
> A dataset that conforms to the profile also conforms to the
> {GIVEN-VOCAB}. Additional constraints in a profile may include:
>      A minimum set of required metadata fields
>      Classes and properties for additional metadata fields not covered
> in the {GIVEN-VOCAB}
>      Controlled vocabularies or URI sets as acceptable values for
> properties
> ]]
> Thanks for your input to come up with a more updated version.
> Cheers,
> Ghislain
> [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/2012/07/conformance_for_vocabularies.html
> [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/dcat/index.html#conformance


Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment

+44 (0)7887 767755
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 11:29:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:52:08 UTC