Profile Guidance Issues, Part 1

[kcoyle]

In my (kcoyle) opinion:

Not a guidance issue

• SHACL: clarification of "partially" and ConformanceTest
• Values for dcterms:conformsTo of instances dcat:DataService (sparql endpoints, for example)
• Missing reference to [DX-PROF-CONNEG]
• formally define competency questions for PROF ontology
• refining the definition of profile in response to the poll
• What is the level of the inheritance link?

Doesn't need an issue

• Profiles Guide doc Security and Privacy
• Profile Guidance doc Abstract

Possible keep?

• Profile Guidance - Examples of application: IHE Profiles
• Refer to Open Geospatial Consortium Profiling
• Define conformance target and implementation evidence for Guidance doc

Keep as guidance issue

• Does "profile of" require all or some elements?
• Use of "standard"
• Refer to Dublin Core Application Profile framework
• Harmonization with ISO/IEC concepts
• Some data may conform to one or more profiles at once [ID3] (5.3)
• Harmonise definitions across Profile docs
• Add section on conformance
• Should the Guidance doc recognise existing, non-interoperable, profiles as valid
• Profiles in relation to Data on the Web Best Practices
• Defining validation
• Comments on "inheritance"

[bertvannuffelen]

Is there any consolidated document/text that cover the above issues already?

[kcoyle]

@bertvannuffelen Not yet. We are just trying to get a handle on the issues, and this is only 1/4 of the ones in the repo.

There is a very old document (https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/) but my feeling is that most of that will change if we follow through on current thinking, which is to focus on DCAT profiles as a starting point.