UML diagram

[nicholascar]

This issue was created in the Profiles Ontology document and is listed in it. Once consensus on addressing it is reached here in comments below, the results will be added to the document and the issue closed.

Is a non-OWL, UML/class diagram needed here?

[dr-shorthair]

Where?

[riccardoAlbertoni]

The choice between an OWL or UML diagram might depend on the kind of user target we want to address.

A UML diagram addresses a larger audience and it is probably more effective in giving an overview of the data properties to use but it might also be a source of misunderstanding (e.g. OWA /CWA interpretations). So I am quite split about this.

[agbeltran]

This is for the conceptual model section: https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/#conceptualmodel

I think that if clearly stated that the UML diagram is for visualization purposes and that it should be interpreted within the open world assumption (as it was done in the revised DCAT spec), the UML diagram could be effective for a wider audience.

[aisaac]

I guess I don't have a strong preference, except that it doesn't matter as long as it's easy to read. Recent specs have gone for many variants:
https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#vocabulary-overview
https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/#infoModel
https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv/#Vocab_Overview
(and of course this one by @riccardoAlbertoni and I: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/#model ;-) )

These are somewhere UML and OWL. Maybe they look more like (abridged) UML, especially the DCAT one. In any case I'd be struggling to identify what counts as an 'OWL diagram', anyway. Is there a standard way to make one?

[rob-metalinkage]

Likewise, I'm agnostic - UML has special types of arrows to shortcut subclassing relationships but the whole thing is so simple it shouldnt be a big deal.

[dr-shorthair]

I used a UML IDE for the DCAT diagram. That makes it easy to layout and maintain, but means that some UML aspects cannot be adjusted.

If someone wants to re-draft it to be less UMLy then you are welcome.

[rob-metalinkage]

note i deleted my comment here about sequence diagrams - that was for the conneg document :-)

[rob-metalinkage]

but then again - this is assigned to me - and there isnt for for the conneg document - so maybe it was the right place and this is mis-labelled?

[nicholascar]

@aisaac "...what counts as an 'OWL diagram', anyway..."
Just diagram using OWL classes and properties, as your DQV diagram does and the current diagram is this already.

Perhaps all I've not done so far then is to add in some colour!

[aisaac]

@nicholascar ok then I guess I'm fine with an "OWL diagram" if it's whatever renders the OWL ontology in a clear way - it's not very different from the UML diagrams after all.

I guess a conclusion to the issue is that yes there needs to be a diagram, and until further guidance it can be in whatever the editors feel appropriate?

[nicholascar]

Due for closing as we are using an improved version of the current 'OWL' diagram for now.

[aisaac]

Fine with me. Maybe one suggestion (which I'd let you editors decide on, freely) to use UML style for subclass arrows.

[agbeltran]

+1 to using UML style for subclass arrows, I think it would make the diagram clearer

[nicholascar]

@agbeltran agree in principle, it's only a practical thing preventing me from implementing this: I can't make open arrowheads in PowerPoint easily! I'll work out how to do this or ultimately use another diagramming tool in final versions if I can't.

[aisaac]

@nicholascar maybe you can send us the source and we see whether we can fix it? Different versions of powerpoint offer different features. Who knows, maybe I have this in mine :-).

[larsgsvensson]

I think there is an error in the diagram: Shouldn't the property arrow isProfileOf between Profile and BaseSpecification go from Profile to BaseSpecification similarly to the relation between Profile and dct:Standard?

[nicholascar]

How about this redraw! Open subClassOf arrows + a few other fixes (consistent property naming) Grey classes are those declared in PROF:

[nicholascar]

@larsgsvensson:

"Shouldn't the property arrow isProfileOf between Profile and BaseSpecification go from Profile to BaseSpecification..."

No, the cardinality on this arrow, [0] shows that a Base Standard is just a Profile (or, more generally, a dct:Standard) that doesn't profile anything else.

"...similarly to the relation between Profile and dct:Standard?"

No again, sorry! A prof:Profile should be prof:isProfileOf of a dct:Standard. Since prof:Profile is also rdfs:subClassOf of a dct:Standard, a prof:Profile could happily be prof:isProfileOf another prof:Profile.

[larsgsvensson]

@nicholascar scripsit:

No, the cardinality on this arrow, [0] shows that a Base Standard is just a Profile (or, more generally, a dct:Standard) that doesn't profile anything else.

Ah, I didn't catch the cardinality constraint. Thanks for your clarification!

[makxdekkers]

I note that the Usage Note of prof:BaseSpecification says: "This may not be a useful class: documents of any specification can be regarded as a trivial profile, so applications only need to be concerned with Profile conformance". If it is not useful, why should it be there?

[aisaac]

@nicholascar this looks better.
And I'm wondering: is there an issue somewhere to discuss the cardinality of isProfileOf? If our official definition implies that a profile is always a profile of something then the min cardinality of isProfileOf can't be 0.

[kcoyle]

And I was wondering if ResourceDescriptor should have dct:format or if that should be on the Resource artifact.

That said, I find "ResourceDescriptor" quite confusing because I always read it as "something (a descriptor) that describes the Resource" not "A resource that defines an aspect of a Profile". The adjective "resource" is what is confusing. I think it needs to be "ProfileDescriptor" because it describes the profile not the resource.

[kcoyle]

Not to mention that Resource Description is 2/3 of Resource Description Framework and in that context it means the description of resources.

[makxdekkers]

I agree with @kcoyle that Resource Descriptor is really a bad name. I read in the document: "can have Resource Descriptors associated with them that define rules for implementing it" (btw "it" should be "them"). Maybe a better name could be Implementing Rules? Because that is what they are defined to be.

[aisaac]

I too have plenty comments on the ontology, but I think they will be for later. This issue is just about the diagram anyway :-)

[rob-metalinkage]

Renaming the metadata carrier for implementing artefacts (now ResourceDescriptor) has been raised multiple times over the last 6 months, so its great we are finally having a discussion. I dont have a position other than requirement for naming accuracy against the required scope. I.e. the use cases include resources such as specification documents, primers and guidance notes.. so 'rules' is a role, not a overarching class description for such things. Also a pdf document cant be given a dct:conformsTo predicate.. only its description can.. hence 'descriptor' .. but this is usually redundant.. dcat:Dataset is not a dataset .. its a cataloguable descriptor. But 'Resource' is probably a bad idea... Maybe 'Implementation' is the better choice.

…

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, 05:58 aisaac ***@***.*** wrote: I too have plenty comments on the ontology, but I think they will be for later. This issue is just about the diagram anyway :-) — You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#404 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIR3YToIo3EaTOqrO4eEDvH_xKTdSjVQks5uuxZvgaJpZM4W2ci6> .

[smrgeoinfo]

Related suggestion about ResourceDescriptor: #529

[dr-shorthair]

The diagram appears to show that Profile is a sub-class of skos:Concept - is that intended?

[nicholascar]

@dr-shorthair: that's a mistake, removed in a re-issue of the diagram

[andrea-perego]

Just an editorial consideration (and not about the entities and relationships in the schema...), but cannot we have the diagram as SVG? Using a Web-friendly vector format would improve readability and it can be easily resized without being blurred (and maybe we could also provide a zoom-in option...).

[nicholascar]

Sure, I'll switch the PNG for an SVG. I produce SVG anyway. This will appear in the https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/fpwd-sprint branch which will contain all these small editorial things.

[andrea-perego]

Grand! Thanks, @nicholascar .

[nicholascar]

Here is an rendered version of the updated image (and other edits): https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/fpwd-sprint/profilesont/index.html

[aisaac]

Discussion on Resource Description happens now on #573

[rob-metalinkage]

Due for closing, diagram included in FWPD. Reopen specific issues about diagram content as needed,