search

w3c / dx-prof

The Profiles Vocabulary
https://w3c.github.io/dx-prof/prof/
Other
5 stars 2 forks source link

Jaroslav's profiles ont doc edits #4

Open nicholascar opened 5 years ago

nicholascar commented 5 years ago

From https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2018Nov/0402.html:

  1. the introductory sentence is opaque, abstract and provides no clues about the purpose/use of the document, replace by a more "introductory" section.

    "An ontology for listing the set of resources required for a standard or a profile of one or more standards, such as schemas, ontologies, and rules, and for specifying the relationships between them and supporting artefacts, such as controlled vocabularies, validation tools, and guidelines."

  2. section 1. Introduction "The profiles ontology provides a structure to describe profiles of information standards."

    • is the target of profiles really "information standards" or something like "digital contents"?

    • introduce the verb "profile" in a technical sense, i.e. as adding constraints resolved according to inheritance rules defined at X. Otherwise sentences like "Standards which do profile others" are hard to interpret

  3. section 5. Conceptual model

    • the "profile of" relation between base and specialized specifications (profiles) does not match my naive intuition, a profile would -extend-> a base profile, while it is -profile of-> digital content that adheres to it?

  4. section 6.5. Class: ResourceDescriptor

    • could not the dcat:Resource / Distribution content model be reused here to capture the implementation of the profile (part) (which does not match the "alignment PROF classes with DCAT 1.1")

  5. section 6.5.4 hasRole

    • is there a (preliminary) vocabulary of roles (e.g. as given in examples) defined?
nicholascar commented 5 years ago

Addressing the points above by number with changes initially in the ont-fpwd-edits branch:

  1. You're going to have to make a concrete suggestion as just saying it is opaque or abstract doesn't really help us! We obviously thought what we wrote was ok and would be prepared to change what we wrote but would need an indication of something better to work with.

  2. The target really is information standards. Use of this ontology isn't limited to digital contexts. Sure, using the ontology itself is likely to be a digital task but it could describe non-digital profiles (think: printed profile Guidance Resource Descriptors).

       I have introduced a one-liner in the Introduction that indicates the definition of Profile to be used is        that of the class definition in the Specification. Commit https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/commit/b1dbea2e48b77b97fab32c91d1b7247969542c49

  1. We have had a couple of questions about this! Note that Base Specification isProfileOf with a cardinality of zero indicating that Base Specifications are Profiles, and thus dct:Standards that do no profile anything else. I have improved this in the diagram by indicating that the Base Specification isProfileOf zero to the dct:Standard, not Profile. Commit https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/commit/b12d83583e5ffc0b310b622722bc9adf6d27ce22

  2. Sorry but we don't think so. After lodging this question, this matter was discussed in this week's plenary meeting and the logic is: Distributions are "information equivalent" representations of a Dataset's content whereas Resource Descriptors are not "information equivalent" for their Profile. A Resource descriptor may be a Guidance document, a Constraints Test etc.: things with different roles.

       I suspect renaming Resource Descriptor will help with the understanding of this issue and such        renaming in likely and flagged for discussion.

  1. Yes there is: https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/resource_roles.html, we just haven't all agreed on how to list those initial Roles; either the ontology or in a separate taxonomy.

       This issue is flagged in the document.

nicholascar commented 5 years ago

Closing as fix long merged

kcoyle commented 5 years ago

No sign that Jaro has been consulted. Let's get his ok before closing.

nicholascar commented 4 years ago

@jakubklimek there was a per-item response to your comments above and there has been further editing to make the current ED now at https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/prof/. Can you please indicate if these comments are addressed? If you have other comments, please make further Issues. Thanks.

nicholascar commented 4 years ago

@jpullmann please could you review the progress here?

@jakubklimek apologies for accidentally sending this to you not Jaro!