philbarker
commented
3 years ago Good points John. I think I agree that it makes sense to call what we are creating a "format", however I would go further. But I think opposite to you, that calling something a format doesn't add much whereas calling it a specification does. I guess it's part a question of personal perceptions, but also how you see the domain of producing formal Standards, in which DCMI plays a role.
What DCMI does is to create specifications, and while there could be many ways to document an application profile in a tabular format, what we have done is to create a specification for one way of doing it. Then there's the question of status. IIRC there used to be some distinction made between DCMI Specifications and DCMI Community Specifications (Tom will correct me if I am wrong), one which essentially reflected the extent to which the whole weight of DCMI (Usage Board, Architecture group) was involved as opposes to just one community group. That's kind of lapsed, but I think it is still useful to make a distinction along those lines.
So my suggestion would be, "DCMI Community Specification for Tabular Application Profiles".
kcoyle
johnhuck
tombaker
stuartasutton
The name we've been using for this product up to now is Dublin Core Tabular Application Profile or DC TAP.
My main concern is that calling a standard about profiles a 'profile' is illogical.
A second concern is that we haven't settled on what type of thing this product is. Is it a model, format, style, scheme, syntax, standard, specification, or something else?
Finally, a related question is how to refer to a profile that follows the DC TAP style [you see the second problem creeping in here].
All three problems create usage difficulties for readers and writers.
When you give the full name in text, 'profile' is the noun, which leads to statements bound to confuse readers like this: "The Dublin Core Tabular Application Profile has only one mandatory element." ("Wait, what's going on? Is this about a profile with one mandatory element?")
Writers who wish to say things about DC TAP are left guessing about which word to use. For instance, is it correct to say "We created a ShEx expression of the standard" or is specification or format or syntax the right word?
Given that there exist application profiles (and potentially even tabular application profiles) that do not conform to DC TAP, writers need to be able to qualify a profile when they refer to it in writing, to say "This is a DC TAP profile" or "My profile is in DC TAP style" (to pick two possibilities).
We could really save people's time and save them from guess-work if we answered the first two questions and provided some suggested usage for the scenario in the third.
Another solution would be simply to pluralize 'profile' in the name. I think I might favour this one.
This simpler option lines up with other names for DC product names related to application profiles. It might make compact usage like this: "This is a valid DC TAP profile" more acceptable.
Specification, as a general word, doesn't add much meaning, but because it is already the word applied to all the DCMI products, I think DC TAP can always safely be called a specification. If this option were paired with the simpler solution for question 1, most usage cases would be satisfied. We could also assign a more specific word, like 'format' and still call DC TAP a specification. You wouldn't want to use 'specification' in the name, though.
Standard is a similar option to specification, but it maybe implies something more complex than we want to.
Model seems not quite right. DC TAP is more prescriptive.
Style is an interesting possibility (think 'APA style'), but maybe not quite right. And the chances that someone else invents a tabular application profile style are probably slim.
Scheme, like Standard, maybe has too many other associations.
Syntax is an interesting possibility (there is a DCMI spec with this word in its name). But perhaps it implies something more prescriptive than we have made.
Format is probably the leading contender. I think we've already used it in the Primer. It is more evocative of function than simply 'specification.' It's also a word used in other DCMI specifications, if we decide to put it in the DC TAP name. But we could choose this option for question 2 and still choose the simpler option for question 1. (e.g., "DC Tabular Application Profiles is a format for application profiles.")
There may be other options to consider.