-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
Profiles Ont & Conneg RFQ emails
Dear XX,
The W3C's Dataset eXchange Working Group (DXWG) [1] has published a First Public Working Draft of The Profiles Ontology [2]. The Profiles Ontology is an RDF vocabulary to describe profiles of (one or more) standards for information resources.
The DXWG is chartered to provide a guidance document on publishing application profiles of vocabularies and a recommendation for content negotiation by application profile. This ontology was not an anticipated output of the DXWG but has been created to allow for formal semantic descriptions of the components of profiles and for relations between profiles and standards. A more complete description of the ontology is given below.
We would greatly appreciate your feedback on this ontology. In reviewing the draft, it might be helpful for you to keep in mind the "Use Cases and Requirements" document that we are working to [3]. We would find it most helpful to get feedback on the following lines:
- Do you agree with the direction of travel of this ontology?
- Are there any areas where we could improve what we have done? [please illustrate]
- Are there any areas where you think the proposal/modelling is wrong or could lead us into describing profiles that are unhelpful? [please give examples and reasons]
- Are there other use cases for formal profile descriptions that we have not considered? [please illustrate]
Please also feel free to make any other comments and suggestions regarding the draft. Note that positive comments or general assent to the work's design are very welcome, as these provide evidence of community acceptance. We would like to receive comments on this draft by January 31, 2019, so that they can inform our next working draft.
Please send comments through GitHub issues (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues - tag 'profile-description') or through email at public-dxwg-comments@w3.org.
Thank you,
Nicholas (on behalf of the W3C DXWG)
[1] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/charter
[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/WD-dx-prof-20181218/
[3] https://www.w3.org/TR/dcat-ucr/
The Profiles Ontology (PROF) is a small RDF vocabulary to describe profiles of (one or more) data specifications, i.e., a named set of constraints over those specifications. It provides the general pattern of narrowing the scope of a specification with additional, but consistent, constraints. It is particularly relevant to data exchange situations where conformance to profiles is expected and carries additional context. PROF enables profile descriptions to specify the role of resources related to data exchange such as schemas, ontologies, rules about use of controlled vocabularies, validation tools, and guidelines. PROF may, however, be used to describe the role of resources in any situation where constraints are made on the usage of more general specifications, as well as the relationships between profiles.
Dear XX,
The W3C's Dataset eXchange Working Group (DXWG) [1] is chartered to provide a guidance document on publishing application profiles of vocabularies and a recommendation for content negotiation by application profile. The WG is about to publish the latter -- titled "Content Negotiation by Profile" -- as a Candidate Recommendation. That document describes how Internet clients may negotiate for content provided by servers according to profiles. Note that it is an extension to the Internet Engineering Taskforce Internet Draft submission "Indicating and Negotiating Profiles in HTTP" [3]. A more complete description of the document is below.
Before moving to Candidate Recommendation, we would greatly appreciate your feedback on the document and we invite you to review the current Editor's Draft [2]. In reviewing the draft, it might be helpful for you to keep in mind the "Use Cases and Requirements" document that we are working to [4]. We would find it most helpful to get feedback on the following lines:
- Do you agree with the publication's overall intention to extend the ways profile negotiation may occur beyond just HTTP, as that is covered in [3]?
- Are there any areas where we could improve what we have done? [please illustrate]
- Are there any areas where you think the proposal/approach is wrong or could lead us into describing interactions that are unhelpful? [please give examples and reasons]
Please also feel free to make any other comments and suggestions regarding the draft. Note that positive comments or general assent to the work's design are very welcome, as these provide evidence of community acceptance. We would like to receive comments on this draft by January 31, 2019, so that they can inform our next working draft.
Please, send comments through GitHub issues (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues - tag 'profile-negotiation') or through email at public-dxwg-comments@w3.org.
Thank you,
Nicholas, Lars & Rob (on behalf of the W3C DXWG)
[1] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/charter
[2] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/
[3] https://profilenegotiation.github.io/I-D-Profile-Negotiation/I-D-Profile-Negotiation
[4] https://www.w3.org/TR/dcat-ucr/
This document describes how Internet clients may negotiate for content provided by servers according to profiles. This is distinct from negotiating by Media Type or Language: the profile is expected to specify the structure of the content of information returned, e. g. which RDF vocabularies or which XML elements are used. This may be a subset of the information the responding server has about the requested resource, and may be structured in a specific way to meet interoperability requirements of a community of practice.