Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Definitions in Profiles Ontology #755

Open
makxdekkers opened this Issue Feb 12, 2019 · 14 comments

Comments

5 participants
@makxdekkers
Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 12, 2019

Definitions that need improving:

  • prof:hasProfile: "A dct:Standard (or a Profile or Base Specification) has a Profile"
  • prof:isProfileOf: "A Profile is a profile of a dct:Standard (or a Base Specification or another Profile)"
  • prof:hasRole: "Functional role of a Resource"
  • prof:isInheritedFrom: "A Profile's Resource Descriptor has been inherited from a Base Specification"
  • and several more.
@kcoyle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 12, 2019

+1 to this, and thanks, @makxdekkers . And more:

prof:hasResource: "A Profile has a Resource Descriptor"
-- The described profile resource
prof:isProfileOf: "The subject of 'is profile of' defines constraints on the object which playes the role of a base specification"
-- A vocabulary or profile that this profile is based on
prof:hasToken: "A property for identifying this Profile for use in APIs"
-- An identifying short name for the profile
prof:hasArtifact: "An rdfs:Resource that implements the Resource Descriptor"
-- The physical resource that is a member of the profile set of resources

etc. We really need to go through both the vocabulary and the set of roles to look at all of the definitions.

@kcoyle kcoyle added the prof-2PWD label Feb 15, 2019

@nicholascar nicholascar added this to To do in Profiles Ontology via automation Mar 5, 2019

@nicholascar nicholascar added this to the PROF 2PWD milestone Mar 5, 2019

@nicholascar nicholascar removed the prof-2PWD label Mar 5, 2019

@nicholascar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 6, 2019

Discussion of these definitions is now taking place within a Google Doc [1] (read only), edit permissions for which have been sent to main participants here. If anyone else would like edit access, please email @nicholascar

[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q8OTx2FxIapCCuNPIDnGYl_kzvJBLT2eAn4Zp6JHrUI/edit?usp=sharing

@kcoyle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 6, 2019

From Leslie Sikos:

Relationship with standard and de facto standard vocabularies and ontologies, such as Dublin Core, PROV-O, and SKOS, should be defined (more) clearly in the specification and formally in the ontology file itself. For example, the range of :isTransitiveProfileOf is defined to be dct:Standard—much more similar definitions would be needed.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/2019Jan/0020.html

@rob-metalinkage

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 13, 2019

Not sure I would agree - making Profile a subclass os dct:Standard means its substituable as the range of any dct:conformsTo predicate. I dont think any other axioms are actually required. The relationship to other vocabularies is otherwise simply OWA - we dont redefine anything that exists, and we dont need to specify what else may be useful.

@nicholascar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 15, 2019

@kcoyle: this Issue is about textual definitions and the Google Doc was set up to address this. The comment from Leslie Sikos is off topic here as we have other issues dealing with relations to other ontologies such as Issue #485 and also we are considering stronger links to DCAT now but not SKOS etc. Mappings from PROF to SKOS, PROV-O etc. are contained in a series of additional mapping files and the section on mappings in the document needs completion.

@kcoyle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 16, 2019

"making Profile a subclass os dct:Standard means its substituable as the range of any dct:conformsTo predicate." - dct:conformsTo was intended to describe conformance to standards, not conformance to anything. Profile should not be declared a subclass of dct:Standard because one wants to use dct:conformsTo - it should only be declared a subclass of dct:Standard if it meets the definition of a standard. I agree with the statement by @agreiner in #792 that not all creators will consider all of their profiles to be standards, and defining profile this way narrows the usability of PROF. It is better to use a minimum semantic commitment and allow users of the vocabulary to add type declaration where they wish.

@kcoyle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 16, 2019

"this Issue is about textual definitions and the Google Doc was set up to address this." I agree that the Google doc was set up to address this, but as we struggle with definitions (e.g. #802) it becomes clear that we first have to understand the meaning, and the meaning of some terms is not clear. Once we understand the meaning we can do wordsmithing.

@makxdekkers

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Mar 16, 2019

@kcoyle I don't think that instances of dct:Standard are necessarily formal standards, like W3C Recommendations or ISO Standards. The definition also allows informal sets of rules. You refer to "the definition of a standard" but it is not clear whether we all have the same idea of what a 'standard' is. Given the definition at DCMI, I don't see how a profile would not qualify as a dct:Standard.

@kcoyle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 16, 2019

Makx, I realize that dct:Standard does not require formal standards - in fact, the usage board rejected that definition when it was suggested by ISO. But not everyone considers their profile a standard. There can be ad hoc profiles that aren't expected to have any weight on future activity. The main thing is that there is no reason to define profiles as standards (even under a loose dct definition). As we have found with some of the domains and ranges in dct, it's easy to exclude someone else's practice. As always, less is more when it comes to these kinds of restrictions.

@kcoyle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 16, 2019

Re: dct:conformsTo

I think it would be best to reserve dct:conformsTo to conformance to things that are considered standards. These could be profiles, but in general I'm assuming that the point of conformsTo is to alert folks to standards conformance like various ISO standards, community standards like MARC21 or Resource Description and Access (the "other RDA"), etc. It looks to me like the way to say that a profile conforms to another profile is already in the vocabulary as "profileOf". If either is to be of use in machine processing it would be best not to overlap them. That doesn't mean that a profile could not be considered a standard, but if conformsTo will be used expressly to link to profiles then there is likely to be confusion (not to mention redundancy) between conformsTo and profileOf.

conformsTo - a standard
profileOf - a specification or profile

@rob-metalinkage

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 17, 2019

mixing up concerns here. Profiles do not conform to other profiles, they specialise (constrain) them in a compatible fashion. We need to keep the concept of a resource and what it conforms to separate.

conformsTo is a relation indicating an arbitrary resource conforms to a standard, (which may be a profile of anther standard)
profileOf is a relation saying that one standard relates to another.

... noting we are still fully compliant with the DC view - there is no formal definition of "considered" to worry about - this is up to the implementers to choose whatever governance regime they want and what specifications they choose to accept as conformance requirements.

There is no change to the model indicated - so please just go back to the issue of getting the definitions as good as we can to minimise red herrings.

@nicholascar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 18, 2019

As a matter of Issue management, I say again that this Issue is about textual definitions and other topics, such as use of dct:Standard are perhaps interesting but off topic so please raise other Issues for them.

I find it very hard to progress the document v. specific Issues if they morph and impossible to close Issues and therefore no progress can be seen to be made.

I'd like to close this Issue when the title topic of textual definitions are dealt with by merging in the word from the Google Doc. If other things come along that require textual definition rethinking, like discussions about dct:conformsTo etc., fine create another Issue!

@kcoyle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 18, 2019

"Profiles do not conform to other profiles, they specialise (constrain) them in a compatible fashion. We need to keep the concept of a resource and what it conforms to separate."

First, we need group agreement on that. But I also think that "profileOf" is not going to mean "constraints" to most potential users of the vocabulary. If it is specific to constraints then it might be best to have that in the property name. Even "prof:constrains".

Nick, if there isn't agreement on what the properties mean you can't hardly have agreement on how they should be worded. The fact that there isn't agreement on the meaning should be a big red flag in terms of publishing the vocabulary. There has to be group consensus on these meanings, and also on the functionality that we expect the vocabulary to support. It looks like we aren't there.

@makxdekkers

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Mar 18, 2019

I agree with @kcoyle that if A prof:profileOf B is to convey that A defines constraints on B, it would be clearer to call it prof:constrains.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.