Re: References to "application profiles"

I made a minor (I hope) change in wording, since it wasn't clear what  
the term "differently" was referring to:

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section2&diff=6012&oldid=6007

Tom, if "RDF" was vital there, please add it back in.

kc

Quoting Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>:

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 09:54:54AM +0200, Joachim Neubert wrote:
>> I agree with Antoine here - the concept of application profiles is
>> really important in library world (and bridges somehow the intellectual
>> gap between traditional record oriented thinking and freely floating
>> properties - OWL is no help for this). Therefore, in my eyes, it should
>> be in the report.
>
> I agree with Joachim and take Karen's point about not having the space to
> elaborate on different senses of Application Profile.  I propose to continue
> linking mentions of "application profile" to the Singapore Framework -- SF is
> an explicitly Linked-Data-compatible notion of application profile  
> (the only?),
> and the document starts by acknowledging that "profile" and "application
> profile" are used by other communities -- but to characterize "application
> profiles" in a very generic way.
>
> In the end, I pretty much stuck to the changes I proposed on Thursday,
> with some additional wordsmithing:
>
> -- 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section2&diff=6007&oldid=6006
>    -- Reference to "application profiles" here left untouched (looks  
> fine, Antoine!)
>    -- Clarified wording in various ways (see diff).
>    -- In addition to LLD XG and LOD-LAM, added DCMI and FOAF Project  
> (citing their joint statement)
>       to the list of advocates for alignments among element sets.
>
>    Paragraph now reads:
>
>        Alignments are likewise relevent for metadata element sets.  
> As evidenced in
>        the [http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/ Linked Open Vocabularies]
>        inventory, practitioners generally follow the good practice  
> of re-using
>        existing element sets or building
>        [http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/  
> application profiles]
>        that re-use elements from multiple sets. Projects such as the
>         
> [http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_Data_Resources#Vocabulary_mapping_framework
>        Vocabulary Mapping Framework] aim at supporting alignment. The lack of
>        institutional support for element sets can threaten the long-term
>        persistence of their shared meanings. Moreover, some  
> reference frameworks,
>        notably FRBR, have been expressed differently in RDF, and  
> these different
>        expressions are not always explicitly aligned -- a situation  
> which limits
>        the semantic interoperability of datasets in which these RDF  
> vocabularies
>        are used. The community should facilitate the coordinated re-use or
>        extension of existing element sets over the creation of new sets from
>        scratch. Aligning already existing element sets when they  
> overlap, typically
>        using semantic relations from
>        [http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_subclassof RDFS] and
>         
> [http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-primer-20091027/#Ontology_Management
>        OWL], should also be encouraged. We hope that better  
> communication between
>        the creators and maintainers of these resources, as advocated by the
>        [http://lod-lam.net/summit/ LOD-LAM initiative], the
>        [http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-foaf/ Dublin Core  
> Metadata Initiative
>        and FOAF Project], and our own incubator group, will lead to  
> more explicit
>        conceptual connections among element sets.
>
> -- 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_recommendations_page_take2&diff=6008&oldid=6005
>    Added:
>
>         [http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/ Application
>         profiles] provide a method for a community of practice to  
> document and
>         share patterns of using vocabularies and constraints for describing
>         specific types of resources.
>
> -- 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Relevant_Technologies&diff=6011&oldid=5832
>    Added:
>         http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/ Application
>         profiles] provide a popular way to document how a community  
> of practice
>         defines a domain model and a pattern for re-using particular
>         vocabularies with particular constraints in describing  
> particular types
>         of resources.
>
> In the latter, I share Jodi's concern about possible confusion between
> "alignment" and "ontology mapping", though not enough to propose it be
> re-worded on this point.  However, the detail about versions of OWL and the
> inadequacies of RDFS seems a bit excessive here, so I have proposed a
> simplification:
>
>         The current version of [http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ OWL  
> Web Ontology
>         Language], which provides methods for mapping equivalences across
>         vocabularies
>         ([http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#OntologyMapping
>         ontology mapping]), allows experts to describe their domain  
> using community
>         idioms while remaining interoperable with related or more  
> common idioms.
>
> Tom
>
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Sunday, 28 August 2011 22:48:50 UTC