ACTION-269: Approach rob and nick and ask for comment request

For Profiles Ontology:

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 DWX was originally charged with proving a Guidance document about profile creation and another about negotiating for information over the Internet, based on profiles. 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 as opposed to best practice profile construction which the Guidance document will contain. 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:

1. Do you agree with the direction of travel of this ontology?
2. Are there any areas where we could improve what we have done? [please illustrate]
3. 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]
4. 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.

Please, send comments through GitHub issues (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues - tag 'profile-description') or through email at public-dxwg-comments@w3.org<mailto:public-dxwg-comments@w3.org>.

Thanks 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-20181211/
[3] https://www.w3.org/TR/dcat-ucr/


The Profiles Ontology - description
-----------------------------------
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.

For Profiles Conneg:

Dear XX,

The W3C's Dataset eXchange Working Group (DXWG) [1] has published a First Public Working Draft of Content Negotiation by Profile [2]. This document describes how Internet clients may negotiate for content provided by servers according to profiles and is an extension to the Internet Engineering Taskforce, Internet Draft submission "Negotiating Profiles in HTTP" [3]. A more complete description of the document is below.

The DWX was originally charged with proving a Guidance document about profile creation and another about negotiating for information over the Internet, based on profiles. In addition, the DXWG is producing an ontology for describing profiles [4].

We would greatly appreciate your feedback on this document. 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 [5]. We would find it most helpful to get feedback on the following lines:

1. 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]?
2. Are there any areas where we could improve what we have done? [please illustrate]
3. 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]
4. 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.

Please, send comments through GitHub issues (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues - tag 'profile-description') or through email at public-dxwg-comments@w3.org<mailto:public-dxwg-comments@w3.org>.

Thanks you,

Nicholas, Lars & Rob (on behalf of the W3C DXWG)


[1] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/charter
[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/WD-dx-prof-conneg-20181211/
[3] https://profilenegotiation.github.io/I-D-Accept--Schema/I-D-accept-schema
[4] https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/WD-dx-prof-20181211/
[5] https://www.w3.org/TR/dcat-ucr/


Content Negotiation by Profile - description
--------------------------------------------
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 content of information returned, which 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.

suggestion for second para for profiles

The DWXG is chartered to "Define and publish guidance on the use of application profiles when requesting and serving data on the Web". As part of its charter "Subject to its capacity, the working group may choose to develop additional relevant vocabularies in response to community demand".

When gathering experiences and requirements for use of profiles it became clear that there was a need for interoperable semantic descriptions of the relations between profiles and the "standards" being profiled, and between profiles and artefacts in various forms needed to implement profiles. The Profiles ontology is agnostic of the type of standard being profiled, and supports use of any constraint languages appropriate to the domain of application. This ontology provides a means to realize the intended guidance around profile publication. A short description is provided below.