Thanks for pointing us to this work Karen.
I'm hoping that you might get some useful feedback from those in the Dublin Core community who have a much better understanding of this area than I. In the meantime, I'll offer some general comments (these are personal, and are not meant to represent a 'DCMI view').
# General comment 1:
I'm glad that this continues to be explored. The Singapore Framework was pioneering in its day, but was probably developed a little too early. The importance of metadata application profiles is now more widely accepted, if not entirely understood, so I think any effort to develop a better understanding of this is valuable.
# Diagrams - relationships
I find the diagrams quite difficult to understand. I think I'm unclear whether the diagrams represent entity relationships or object-oriented-hierarchies. These seem to be mixed together - for example the relationships between Standard and Profile. I guess it's not necessarily invalid for these to be mixed in this way, but I find it unusual and a little confusing.
# Standards
Reading the page at:
https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profilesont
(BTW - there's a broken link on that page to the "(DXWG)'s Profile Guidance work").
This describes a standard thus: "A Standard can be either a Base Specification (a Standard not profiling any other Standard) or a Profile (a Standard which does profile others)."
This is an interesting use of the word 'standard'. I appreciate that we have these imprecise terms, and that we have to arrange them somehow, and that this definition is not necessarily any worse than any other but, nonetheless, I find it a bit surprising. I have tended to view metadata application profiles as being an arrangement of properties and constraints, drawing from one or more namespaces (frequently from more than one namespace in the domains with which I am most familiar), in order to either facilitate some task, or to describe some domain. In this formulation, 'standard' is closer to 'namespace', and so I would expect a many-to-many relationship between standard and profile.
# General comment 2:
My view, when approaching these things, is always coloured by my main experience which is as a software and systems developer, rather than as an information scientist. So, when I face a new ontology, there is one over-riding question in my mind:
Will this help me to do something useful?
I haven't had time yet to explore the indicative examples offered on the GitHub site, so the answer to my question may lie in those.
From my perspective, the most pressing issues with application profiles are:
1. we don't have a conventional way to document them yet
2. we don't have a conventional way to automatically validate data instances of application profiles (i.e. data which allegedly conforms to the constraints of a given application profile)
I'm aware that there are efforts to address these concerns, and this ontology does point to these - especially in the second diagram with the "Resource Roles".
However, my initial reaction to the ontology in general is that it is "too much ontology" (heresy, I know... ;-)), and that something quite a bit simpler than this might help to position application profiles in a frame which allows us to develop these conventions.
As I say, these are personal thoughts. It would be great if others from this community would jump in with their thoughts too! I know for a fact there are people here with a far deeper understanding of this space than I!
cheers,
Paul
> On 21 Jan 2019, at 16:06, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hello, all.
>
> I know that this came out at an inconvenient time right after the
> holidays, but I very much want for the DXWG to get some responses from
> the Dublin Core community. This matters because the profiles ontology
> here is (so far) the only W3C ontology for profiles and it is likely to
> have a strong influence on future profiles work at W3C. The ontology
> presents a model that could be seen as analogous to the Singapore
> Framework, although the actual content of the ontology (in particular in
> the few roles that it defines) leaves out much of the SF provided.
>
> Discussion here would be great, and specific comments can be sent to the
> list in the documents themselves.
>
> Because many of us like a picture, here's a picture of the profiles
> ontology:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profilesont/profilesont.png
>
> And here is the link a picture of the roles vocabulary:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profilesont/resource_roles.png
>
> Thanks,
> kc
>
> On 1/14/19 7:50 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> The W3C Data Exchange Working Group [1] has issued first drafts of two
>> potential standards relating to profiles.
>>
>> The first is a small ontology for profile resources [2]. This ontology
>> is based on the case where an application profile is made up of one or
>> more documents or resources, such as both human-readable instructions
>> and a SHACL validation document. The ontology links those into a single
>> graph called a "profile" and states the role of each resource.
>>
>> The second is a companion to an (in-progress) IETF proposal [3] that
>> would support requesting web resources that are conformant with a
>> profile.[4]
>>
>> If you have an interest in profiles please look at and comment on these
>> proposals. Instructions for commenting are included in the documents
>> themselves. I'm happy to answer questions here, as well, but comments to
>> the W3C are the primary goal.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> kc
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Main_Page
>> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/WD-dx-prof-20181218/
>> [3]
>> https://profilenegotiation.github.io/I-D-Accept--Schema/I-D-accept-schema
>> [4] https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/WD-dx-prof-conneg-20181218/
>>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the DC-ARCHITECTURE list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=DC-ARCHITECTURE&A=1
-------------------------------------------
Paul Walk
http://www.paulwalk.net
Founder and Director, Antleaf Ltd
http://www.antleaf.com
Antleaf provides Management Services to DCMI
http://www.dublincore.org
-------------------------------------------
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the DC-ARCHITECTURE list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=DC-ARCHITECTURE&A=1
|