Roles inclusion in PROF is at risk

[nicholascar]

The example ResourceRole instances in this document are considered a "feature at risk" until the total list and definitions for them can be widely agreed to.

If not listed here, ResourceRole instances will be listed in a supplimentary vocabulary to PROF.

[ericstephan]

@nicholascar - I can see the advantages of the ResourceRole instances in a supplemental vocabulary. Especially if it is maintained by a future community group in a similar way that the schema.org community group has maintained its product and evolved new domain-specific modules.

[rob-metalinkage]

@ericstephan we concur this is the long term requirement - the question is whether we define a few top-level cases for roles which are directly derived from the motivating use cases and can be added to or extended in such a registry. Without a mandate to maintain a registry at this stage we opted for a "useful out of the box" approach, but this is open to review.

[nicholascar]

I think we should follow the recent W3C Registry approach. Several recent WGs and CGs are maintaining registries of things, e.g. this recent one for Distributed ID methods:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-method-registry/#the-registry

At W3C, registries seem to be a new thing.

All W3C registries: https://www.w3.org/TR/?title=registry

They appear as NOTEs

[ericstephan]

@nicholascar +1 for using the registry, thank you for sharing.

@rob-metalinkage I totally understand the need for consensus in the WG on this issue. I have to say that for an initial list they are critical for supporting profile specifications that are being proposed in the electrical power grid community.

From a preservation standpoint, if the roles are deemed out of scope, the preservation of this as a technical note is or preferably in the registry Nicholas mentioned would be helpful.