Change short names and explain scope better #599
Conversation
Trying to adopt the structure proposed at F2F4 and fix some misalignment with the working document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg. Also changing titles and abbreviation to better reflect the intention behind several requirements. Changed are flagged in notes.
Taking into account some comments by @jpullmann
As of today this requirement is still not approved
RPFDIST has been commented out. RPFID, RPFALIAS, RPFMD have been moved to the "profile negotiation" section
Especially removing all editor-targeted notes flagging changes in headings and abbreviations
Shifting "Alignment" and "Meta-level and methodology" groups up, such there is a continuous DCAT and Profile section
… into gh-pages-connegfpwd-ra
…act and into, removed hint of definition from abstract.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The definition of profiles ontology does not match my understanding of the ontology. The definition here says: "describes the general pattern of narrowing the scope of a specification" which to me isn't the case. It describes the components of a profile. It doesn't narrow anything and it isn't general - it is specific to profiles. Here's my view:
"The Profile Ontology allows one to describe a profile as a set of one or more resources that fulfill the functions of the profile such as vocabulary definition, input instructions, validation. The ontology also includes the capability to describe a profile's relationship to other files or profiles, such as 'profile of' another profile or vocabulary."
If possible, other changes included here could be allowed to merge, such as those that add "dx-" to the short names.
…wd-ra # Conflicts: # conneg-by-ap/index.html
|
broke the branch. replacing |
|
Previous text: The Profiles Ontology is an RDF vocabulary that describes the general pattern of narrowing the scope of a specification with additional, but consistent, constraints. In data exchange situations conformance to such profiles carries additional context about the interoperability expectations of any data. The Profiles Ontology 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. The ontology may however be used to describe the role of artefacts in any situation where constraints are made on a the usage of more general specifications. My text: The Profiles Ontology is an RDF vocabulary to describe the resources that define and implement a profile. These resources may be human-readable documents (PDFs, textual documents), vocabularies or ontologies (XSD, RDF), resources specific to validation tools (SHACL, ShEx, Schematron), or any other files or resources that support the profile. Each resource is defined as having a role that defines its function within the profile. The ontology also provides for the description of relationships between profiles and the standards to which they conform. Standards in this case can be vocabularies or it can be other profiles from which the described profile is a derivation, expansion, or selection. This ontology provides a standardized, machine readable formalism for describing the context of profiles. The basis of the ontology is a specialization of I would definitely like @draggett to review - not just this but the entire introduction (just a few paragraphs) |
|
@kcoyle writes:
which begs the question of what is the definition of the term "profile" in this context. I would like to see that given immediately before the definition of "profiles ontology". Essentially, we want to minimise the non-everyday terms we use, and never to use them without first defining what we mean by them in this context. |
|
Some minor readability tweaks to the second paragraph:
|
I couldnt see any definition in the abstract, but I've reworded to make it more explicit about the scope.