Hi Lars,
Thanks for the offer! It would be great.
the idea would be to register your story and requirement in our database at
http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/
So that it eventually appears as an official DC requirement.
For this we need a requirement in the database, a use case that requires it, and a case study that motives the use case.
[1] is currently described by [2] as a "case study", but I believe it's not really one ([1] looks rather like a requirement with a candidate solution). The real business case is probably the one at
http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/KIM-recommendations
I see that the KIM-recommendations is already in our database as a case study so we're good:
http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=CS-5-DINI-AG-KIM-RDF-REPRESENTATION-OF-BIBLIOGRAPHIC-DATA
What we'd need now is a generic description of the use case. Something like:
[
Title: Accessing data about a resource according to a specific profile
Description:
For a same resource (URI), various RDF descriptions are available, corresponding to different application profiles.
A Linked Data consuming service accesses these different descriptions using the same URI for the resource, by specifying which profiles he wants to get the data according to.
For example ....
]
And then a requirement, like:
[
Title: Serving different data profiles depending on client request
Description:
Linked Data content negotiation recipes are updated/extended so that for a same resource URI, it is possible to serve different descriptions depending on the application profiles a client is interested in (as specified by an URI).
Possible solutions are described at
http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RFC-6906-Profiles
]
If it's not easy for you to access the database, I could do it. But it can't happen without some input on these descriptions above!
Cheers,
Antoine
On 5/26/15 11:12 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> Antoine
>
>> Thanks for the answer!
>>
>> June 18 would be alright.
>
> OK, then I'll try to put something together until that call.
>
>> As far as I can tell the group doesn't have an official input on your question.
>> Truth is, there was no champion for making that issue explicit - or it was
>> forgotten in the maelstrom of new requirements that came after and/or
>> merged with them.
>
> At least it was documented... [1] , but yes, there is no hint that we actually _did_ something of that user story [2]. I definitely confess that I haven't been very active in the group and also have not really looked after my use case.
>
>> This is indeed quite ironic, given the original context for the group's creation.
>> But if you submit some description of the case, we'd be certainly happy to
>> oblige add it to our lists!
>
> I'd be happy to oblige. What exactly do I need to do?
>
> [1] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RFC-6906-Profiles
> [2] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php?title=RDF-Application-Profiles#Use_Cases_and_Requirements
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lars
>
>> On 5/22/15 10:31 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
>>> Hi Antoine,
>>>
>>>> In the past two weeks there's been a discussion about Linked Data Profiles
>> on
>>>> the W3C public linked open data list:
>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2015May/thread.html
>> ("Profiles
>>>> in Linked Data")
>>>>
>>>> It looks relevant, and it's a very long thread!
>>>
>>> Yes I started that thread with the goal of finding consensus on how clients and
>> servers can negotiate profiles (or shapes or whatever-we-prefer-to-call-them).
>> The use case I have is the provision of bibliographic data in several "profiles", e.
>> g. BIBFRAME, RDA/FRBR, etc. There hasn't been a clear answer yet...
>>>
>>>> Lars, you have started it, would it be possible for you to report on it in one of
>>>> the coming bi-weekly calls of the RDF AP group?
>>>
>>> I could present/report on June 18 if that is a suitable date. June 4 is a public
>> holiday in this part of Germany so I shall not be able to attend that meeting.
>>>
>>>> At the call today, we were quite curious to hear whether you think there's
>>>> something we should do!
>>>
>>> If I remember correctly, Kai kicked off this working group after my
>> presentation at SWIB in 2013 where I mentioned the need for profile
>> negotiation, so perhaps I should ask the wg members if you have any input!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Lars
>>>
>>>
>
>
|