06:08:03 RRSAgent has joined #dxwg 06:08:03 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-irc 06:08:14 rrsagent, make logs public 06:08:34 chair: kcoyle 06:08:50 sscribenick:PWinstanley 06:08:54 present+ 06:09:06 roba has joined #dxwg 06:09:07 scribenick: PWinstanley 06:09:33 present+ 06:09:56 kcoyle has joined #dxwg 06:09:59 looks like i'm the only person on webex? 06:10:11 rrsagent, create minutes v2 06:10:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley 06:10:19 * or is it a new link today? 06:10:41 * Pwinstanley aye 06:13:57 Makx has joined #dxwg 06:19:43 DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg 06:20:43 LarsG has joined #dxwg 06:23:52 present+ Makx 06:26:56 present+ 06:29:30 riccardoAlbertoni has joined #dxwg 06:31:29 meeting: DXWG F2F4, Lyon, Day 2 06:31:31 https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/F2f4 06:31:55 Topic: left overs from yesterday 06:32:03 present+ 06:32:29 AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg 06:32:34 present+ 06:32:39 antoine has joined #dxwg 06:32:42 RRSAgent, make logs world 06:32:47 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 06:32:47 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 06:32:55 Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg 06:33:03 present+ 06:33:09 present+ antoine 06:33:25 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/F2f4#Agenda_Friday_October_26 06:33:45 meeting: DXWG f2f @ TPAC 2018 - Day 2 06:34:31 present+ 06:34:43 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 06:34:43 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 06:35:02 s/sscribenick: PWinstanley// 06:35:03 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 06:35:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 06:37:05 Topic: Conneg Deliverable 06:37:29 alejandra has joined #dxwg 06:37:38 brinkwoman has joined #dxwg 06:37:38 present+ 06:37:48 present+ Linda 06:39:00 LarsG: Nick has done a lot of work looking at content negotiation using querystring arguments in URLs and in defining an abstract API through which clients and servers can describe their potential resources either through full URLs or through tokens 06:39:18 LarsG has joined #dxwg 06:39:57 q+ 06:40:07 present+ 06:40:18 ... I am keeping up with that, and I should be able to commit something today on content negotiation by profile using HTTP, and this, following review of the group, should be adequate for FPWD 06:41:38 ... the next meeting should be able to review and publish 06:42:08 antoine: next week is too early for a vote, but perhaps is a good chance for awareness raising 06:42:52 kcoyle: on 30th Oct we can introduce the draft, and then propose the vote on publication on 6 Nov 06:43:30 LarsG: asking roba if it suits 06:44:03 roba: there is a bit of work to be done, but it is only writing - not much in the way of examples etc. 06:44:18 kcoyle: can this be done by 30 Oct? 06:44:46 q? 06:44:54 LarsG: yes, it can be finalised by then. People will have a stable doc to review 06:45:26 antoine: re: managing expectations - has Reuben had time to look at this? 06:45:48 LarsG: I keep sending him information, that is the best I can do 06:46:05 s/Reuben/Ruben/ 06:46:55 kcoyle: what is the interaction with IETF work? 06:48:15 LarsG: the IETF draft is a request for registration of 2 new HTTP headers: Accept-Profile and Content-Profile 06:49:09 ... then we will have the calling by AP doc giving information on how that fits in with the content negotiation by profile model 06:49:44 kcoyle: timeline dependencies? 06:49:47 q? 06:50:01 LarsG: we need IETF comment before we go to CR 06:50:18 ack antoine 06:50:30 q+ to ask about fall back work 06:51:12 antoine: content and scope, whilst basically about querystring arguments (QSA) , how comfortable are we that this matches the charter focus on HTTP 06:52:10 q+ to talk about charter 06:53:45 alejandra I am looking at it. what do you want me to do? 06:54:13 q+ 06:54:28 roba: QSA - using a paramaterised URL reflects current practice. Profile negotiation isn't supported by headers, so people just invent their own ways. Giving a conceptual model allows people to see that the headers will do the process that is currently done other ways. We are making the http 06:54:28 headers proposals relevant using terms of approaches that people really use. So do we use an abstract model, or do we describe / explain using a canonical model. 06:54:37 ack DaveBrowning 06:54:37 DaveBrowning, you wanted to ask about fall back work 06:55:10 https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/charter#deliverables 06:55:11 DaveBrowning: just for clarification, I thought we had a charter requirement to provide a fallback in case IETF didin't move in our direction 06:55:44 q+ 06:56:54 LarsG: yes we do. QSA is a fallback mechanism. If we don't get the IETF review then there is an alternative. 06:57:47 JerermyTandy: look at the WoT group to see how they are tracking JSON/LD 06:58:25 present+ JeremyTandy, LindaVanDenBrink 06:58:26 q? 06:58:42 ack LarsG 06:58:42 LarsG, you wanted to talk about charter 06:58:50 ack AndreaPerego 07:00:01 AndreaPerego: I am concerned about QSA - is it appropriate for standardised querey parameters, what if they are already specified for other purposes? 07:00:40 dsr has joined #dxwg 07:00:52 q+ 07:01:06 ... supporting http headers is a way to overcome the issue of catalogue services that use these parameters, but using QSA, I'm not sure as to how that could work 07:01:10 ack antoine 07:02:55 antoine: there are standard API like OpenSearch that do this, are we in a similar position to them where we can standardise the way they did? I am keen on having QSA somewhere. My doubt is the strength of the recommendation, especially when looking at the abstract model. It would be a pity to 07:02:55 get negative comment which might push us to remove the abstract model - we need to save that 07:03:12 ... I think this should be in the same doc, but non normative 07:03:17 ack roba 07:04:28 +1 for roba on strongly encouraging a mapping between the model and whatever API people use 07:04:56 q? 07:04:59 q+ 07:05:16 roba: I agree with the 2 points made. QSA is in use; and we need to be able to describe what people actually currently do. We could provide a mapping of the paramaters that people should use. We could extend the profile description ontology to show the mapping between an abstract parameter and a 07:05:16 real one. I think it will be simple to deliver a solution once we understand what the recommendation will be 07:05:25 ack LarsG 07:06:21 LarsG: seconding what roba just said. The mapping from the abstract model to the proposal is still work in progress. We can provide a recommendation on how to document this, together with illustrations. 07:07:02 phila has joined #dxwg 07:07:04 AndreaPerego: in this case the parameters for mediaType could be flexible, I think the normative requirement is too much 07:07:22 LarsG: I agree with you, we haven't fully considered it 07:07:36 agree 07:07:46 kcoyle: will you add something into the draft to soften this requirement 07:08:02 action: LarsG to add note about QSA to the conneg document 07:08:02 Created ACTION-249 - Add note about qsa to the conneg document [on Lars G. Svensson - due 2018-11-02]. 07:08:20 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 07:08:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 07:08:34 kcoyle: any other things to say about conneg? 07:08:56 q+ 07:09:04 ... othr dependencies between conneg and the other 3 deliverables? 07:09:07 ack roba 07:10:35 q+ 07:10:49 roba: there is one around the description of where a profile is a sub-profile and conneg. we need to be able to let the client know about both more specialised profile and the 'parent' more generalised profile 07:10:52 ack kcoyle 07:12:00 q+ 07:12:03 q+ 07:12:08 kcoyle: this is tricky, bringing uup the discussion on what it means to say something is a profile of something else. From the LoV statistics, almost every vocab uses some DC. if you ask for DC you might get every vocab. So we have to watch when we say that something is a profile of something 07:12:08 else 07:12:13 ack AndreaPerego 07:13:28 AndreaPerego: agree, esp when dealing with e.g. media types. If I am looking for geoDCAT-AP and I get DC, is this acceptable to the client? it is safer with mediatype because there is defined structure that provides the relations, but in other situations it is dangerous 07:13:39 ack riccardoAlbertoni 07:14:07 riccardoAlbertoni: I agree it is dangerous. 07:14:48 I dont haver a strong opinion about solution - but now we have moving forward I am willing to think about it some more :-) 07:15:08 kcoyle: other comments? yesterday it was stated that our goal is minimum interdependencies, so we need to look if we *have* to have them or can we do wihtout them 07:15:28 s/without/without/ 07:15:40 I am also saying that to limit the dangerousness we should think to distinguishing different kinds of profileOf relationship.. 07:16:12 LarsG: the IETF document would cover situations of requests for profiles that don't exist 07:16:17 i think the response is easy - its the listing thats trickier perhaps 07:17:05 q+ 07:17:18 q+ 07:17:31 kcoyle: the dependency with profileOf is with the default. Is it necessary to be that specific, or can we have a default within a family of documents 07:17:35 ack roba 07:18:17 roba: we should follow the logic behind conneg by format. it is up to the client to specify what it is looking for, not the server 07:18:33 q+ to talk about q-values 07:18:55 q- 07:18:57 ... I think the response neg is straightforward. The mechanism for advertising what is available is trickier 07:19:04 ack LarsG 07:19:04 LarsG, you wanted to talk about q-values 07:19:40 q+ 07:20:14 LarsG: The client has the option of using q values in the header. But do we put the burden on the client to know what is available, or do we get the server to provide a return with other options that the client might have asked for 07:20:41 q+ 07:20:50 ... this is a challenging question when we bring in profile subsumption 07:21:00 ack AndreaPerego 07:21:42 if profiles are identified by derferenceable URIs (with profiles ont canonical views) clients can access all information - perhaps its up to deployers to decide which to list (as a cache of the linked network resources) 07:22:01 q+ 07:22:05 AndreaPerego: there is no governance in this , it will be tricky to know how a server might implement this. I would support the main burden being on the client. The client knows the recipient system 07:22:10 ack kcoyle 07:22:30 kcoyle: will the IETF doc reference the proposed conneg doc? 07:22:39 LarsG: yes, as an illustration 07:22:44 ack roba 07:23:18 q+ 07:24:07 roba: +1 to AndreaPerego. The server is able to provide some info, but the main burden is on the client. The client can use URIs and RDF to work out via network traversal what options are available. Servers should have the ability, but clients should have the responsibility to discover what is 07:24:07 available 07:24:11 ack antoine 07:24:32 +1 07:24:36 antoine: this is a way to motivate getting a profile description 07:24:54 +! 07:25:03 s/+!/+1/ 07:25:43 action: antoine to add a note to the profiles guidance doc to indicate the motivation to have desrciptions of profiles is to help clients find out what is available 07:25:44 Created ACTION-250 - Add a note to the profiles guidance doc to indicate the motivation to have desrciptions of profiles is to help clients find out what is available [on Antoine Isaac - due 2018-11-02]. 07:26:11 s/the/a/ 07:26:26 s/desrciptions /descriptions / 07:26:34 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 07:26:34 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 07:28:21 q+ 07:28:54 ack antoine 07:29:29 antoine: what do we do about editorial stuff for this conneg doc? 07:29:46 LarsG: wait till I've got my comments into the doc 07:29:54 q+ 07:30:02 ack DaveBrowning 07:30:36 DaveBrowning: motivation - are you thinking about adding motivational statements, reasons for why we did what we did? 07:30:45 antoine: might be both. 07:31:43 ... we need to say we identified gaps, the profile ontology was needed to fill the gap, etc etc 07:31:55 q+ 07:32:09 DaveBrowning: from TAG comments this is seen as providing clarity of motive 07:32:16 ack kcoyle 07:32:50 kcoyle: one thing relating - I have bookmarked a description of gaps. What does exist and then what is missing. 07:33:35 ... I also volunteered to go through and check that we use USA spelling. Do I wait to the end? It needs to be done before we go to FPWD 07:35:08 ... we can figure this out together LarsG before we send to W3C 07:35:44 q? 07:36:03 alejandra: Have we plannied implementations? 07:36:20 q+ 07:37:00 s/plannied/planned 07:37:06 LarsG: Nick is working on one in CSIRO. We will try to make an implementation of HTTP headers 07:37:28 AndreaPerego: I am going to try an implementation for GeoDCAT-AP 07:37:53 ... it will implement conneg for mediatype, and I will extend it 07:38:09 LarsG: what is an implementation? Is a PoC enough? 07:38:27 AndreaPerego: this will be on the web, so it will be in production. 07:38:40 I expect to implement at OGC Definitions Server 07:38:51 antoineL the social web rushed something through from Europeana 07:39:05 GeoDCAT-AP API here (including link to online demo): https://github.com/SEMICeu/iso-19139-to-dcat-ap/tree/master/api 07:39:10 kcoyle: assume that prototypes are implementations unless told otherwise 07:39:45 and I beleive Nick is poised to implement an Australian government deployment 07:40:00 q+ 07:40:21 ack AndreaPerego 07:40:40 ack roba 07:41:32 q+ 07:41:42 roba: for conneg and profiles, the motivation for nick and I being in the group is that we are actively working on systems that will use what we are describing, so this will provide working systems 07:41:47 The OAI-PMH equivalent to the GeoDCAT-AP API: https://github.com/ec-jrc/datacite-to-dcat-ap/tree/master/api 07:41:56 ack kcoyle 07:42:47 q+ to let Jeremy say something 07:43:06 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 07:43:06 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 07:43:42 a dcat profile for cataloguing profiles makes sense :-) 07:43:44 kcoyle: do we want to catch danbri to see if we can discuss discovery using the profile ontology - so we want to see what can be done to enhance search options? Also, can we see profiles as datasets and use Google's understanding of DCAT to then use DCAT for topic to help discovery. How will 07:43:44 people find profiles? Will what we are doing aid that 07:43:55 ack brinkwoman 07:43:55 brinkwoman, you wanted to let Jeremy say something 07:44:34 * cant quite hear 07:45:14 brinkwoman: Jeremy here. I was talking to danbri. his suggestion is to use site maps to attach resources to the home page. you can stick all kinds of stuff in a site map, it is a well-known place for sticking stuff 07:46:28 cool - we should add an issue to profile guidance - and an example in profiles ontology of a site map advertising profiles 07:47:03 q+ 07:47:12 q_ 07:47:14 q+ 07:47:20 ... conneg for profiles was probably less of an interest because it is asking people to run before they can walk 07:47:23 ack roba 07:47:57 q- 07:48:02 roba: all kinds of stuff - does that mean descriptions from the profiles ontology too? 07:48:02 q+ to talk about https://iiif.io/api/presentation/3.0/ 07:48:22 brinkwoman: Jerremy: talk to danbri for clarification 07:49:32 ack antoine 07:49:32 antoine, you wanted to talk about https://iiif.io/api/presentation/3.0/ 07:49:46 so its one possible mechanism to list supported profiles (by domain of server) 07:50:57 antoine: IIIF link has an API to publish images, but the service for images also has metadata and in that there are links to more complete descriptions of the objects. That is done within the manifest. 07:51:42 ... in the manifest there is a seeAlso that points to other attributes including profile locations 07:52:12 AndreaPerego: in this case the profile is what? 07:52:51 antoine: it is the profile for a bibliographic record, but there are also profiles for image delivery services 07:53:38 q? 07:54:39 ... we have tested stuff with site maps at europeana where we have tried different ways of harvesting metadata. There will be an example that I can find 07:56:27 * I'll be back fo rthe JSON-LD session 07:57:05 [coffee - back in 30 mins - 10:30AM CEST] 07:57:06 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 07:57:06 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 08:39:03 PWinstanley has joined #dxwg 08:41:47 kcoyle: are there any other dependencies that we need to deal with? 08:42:06 q+ 08:42:07 ... there is the section on 'family of documents' 08:42:52 DaveBrowning: what is the criterion for being in the 'family of documents'? The profiles work is more general than DCAT, so it could be decoupled 08:43:18 ... alternatively, it could be one of a broad set of documents to do with data exchange 08:43:21 alejandra has joined #dxwg 08:43:27 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/364 08:43:29 present+ 08:43:34 ack antoine 08:44:15 antoine: on that same point there is discussion in github, by putting DCAT next to the profiles we might be suggesting a relation that doesn't really exist 08:45:16 DaveBrowning: The other way round, there is an open quesiton about profiles of DCAT. Perhaps we should do a profile of the new vocab that defines the 2014 version 08:45:26 q+ 08:45:38 kcoyle: That is out of scope of the charter but only for specific narrow domains 08:45:56 DaveBrowning: It would help DCAT1 people migrate / crosswalk 08:46:27 ... it might be an interesting validation exercise 08:47:11 kcoyle: it can be done and mentioned off the wiki page 08:48:01 DaveBrowning: I can collect it as a github issue and we can revisit later 08:49:25 q- 08:49:26 kcoyle: all the documents from this group - the wiki page will remain. we can either get rid of extras or else follow DWBP and create a page for their deliverables 08:49:31 q+ 08:49:49 ... that is where we will list all that the group creates, both informative and normative 08:50:12 ... What do people recommend for the 'family of documents'? 08:51:14 ... how do we do this coherently ? 08:51:17 ack antoine 08:51:49 q+ 08:51:51 antoine: I a keen to keep the bullet list for the 3 profile docs for each of the 3 docs 08:52:28 ... but treat DCAT as a separate doc. It is too difficult to spend ages describing the (distant) relation 08:52:40 ack AndreaPerego 08:53:12 AndreaPerego: agree with antoine, there can be a link from DCAT but in the profiles it doesn't make sense 08:53:20 +1 to antoine and AndreaPerego's comments on the family of documents 08:53:53 antoine: even using dcat elements, there isn't point in adding it to these bullet points 08:54:35 proposed: that the group of profile documents should appear in each of those profile-related documents, but in dcat only mentioned in a section of profiles 08:54:47 +1 08:54:57 proposed: that the group of profile documents should appear in each of those profile-related documents, but in dcat only mentioned in a section on profiles 08:54:58 +1 08:55:02 +1 08:55:07 +1 08:55:07 +1 08:55:09 +1 08:56:09 simonstey has joined #dxwg 08:56:50 proposed: that the group of profile documents should appear in each of those profile-related documents, but in dcat we remove that section 08:57:56 proposed: only the group of profile documents should appear in each of the profile-related documents; the DCAT document will remove the family of documents section 08:58:00 +1 08:58:04 +1 08:58:10 +1 08:58:14 +1 08:58:17 +1 08:58:19 +1 08:58:31 +1 08:58:48 +1 08:58:54 +1 08:58:57 resolved: only the group of profile documents should appear in each of the profile-related documents; the DCAT document will remove the family of documents section 08:59:15 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 08:59:15 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 09:00:25 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/364 09:01:12 q+ 09:01:24 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 09:01:48 Jaroslav_Pullmann: there are assertions where terms from other vocabs are used in DCAT, e.g. DC 09:02:07 kcoyle: but we are talking about interdependencies between documents 09:03:35 q+ 09:03:54 simonstey has left #dxwg 09:04:15 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 09:04:15 q+ 09:05:01 Jaroslav_Pullmann: there are examples, I think we should use referential examples that are interlinked 09:05:05 ack DaveBrowning 09:06:23 DaveBrowning: I agree with AndreaPerego that it is difficult to be generic, and trying to cultivate a style with reuse might be OK but we shouldn't make them too solidly linked. We should focus on the kernel of the illustration. There is a risk of dependencies falling over if we over-rationalise 09:06:41 kcoyle: Is DCAT planning on more examples 09:06:47 +1 to DaveBrowning's comment 09:08:19 kcoyle: so apart from conneg-IETF, and profile guidance & ontology there are not many other links 09:09:00 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/gh-pages/profilesont/resource_roles.ttl 09:10:20 +q 09:10:22 kcoyle: the last link of resource roles 09:10:30 ack alejandra 09:10:52 phila has joined #dxwg 09:11:31 alejandra: is it worth distinguishing between the ones that are processes (e.g. validation) and those that are vocabulary and without action (e.g. with Prov) 09:11:56 q+ 09:12:03 kcoyle: we just had things, we didn't have any processes 09:12:14 ack AndreaPerego 09:12:56 AndreaPerego: looking at the profile ontology, the roles need clarification. the role is intrinsic to the role descriptor. 09:13:04 for processes, we will need to link to associated methods/scripts 09:14:18 ... if I have to validate data, is the validation role that is requires a ternary relationship to be expressed 09:14:52 ... we need to think about this part before deciding where resource role should be placed 09:15:43 antoine: we need to have the discussion on aligning the models first 09:16:09 newton has joined #dxwg 09:16:26 q+ 09:16:42 AndreaPerego: I see a sense in that I have a resource to be validated and the validation is done using one resource descriptor, and other functions using other resource descriptors 09:16:58 ack kcoyle 09:17:33 kcoyle: could this be related to an issue discussed in profiles guidance where entities can have >1 role 09:17:54 q+ 09:18:14 ... e.g. defining constraints as well as documentation 09:18:18 q+ 09:19:00 AndreaPerego: I can use e.g. shacl graph for validating, but only on (class of) thing 09:19:06 ack antoine 09:19:10 +q 09:19:53 antoine: the role is a potential, and there can be several. and this can be jeopardised by a file containing several profiles 09:20:18 ... there could be a profile that is validating in one context and a guide to input in another 09:21:06 scribing Peter - brings to mind tactile, documentation + R code gets converted to document that is a rendering of the documentation 09:21:22 q? 09:21:28 ack PWinstanley 09:21:31 ack PWinstanley 09:21:35 ack alejandra 09:21:35 ack alejandra 09:22:22 alejandra: this is related to linking the profile to the artefact that allows checking, such as the shacl. it is worth having these roles not just as annotations. they should link to actionable stuff 09:22:33 s/tactile/TeXtile/ 09:22:42 q+ 09:22:57 ... this could relate to the literate programming example 09:23:36 s/rendering of the documentation/rendering of the documentation and the execution of the code/ 09:24:51 http://www.literateprogramming.com/tools.html 09:26:58 q+ 09:27:36 AndreaPerego: need to review the conceptual model for this part a little more to be sure we are going in the right direction 09:27:41 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 09:28:20 Jaroslav_Pullmann: relating to the machine processing, my hope was to find e.g. automated testing as part of the build processing, but we don't have this motivation. 09:28:47 ... the benefit I'd expect from such as desription of a profile would be to facilitate automated testing 09:30:05 ... going to machine readable gives us some scope for supporting automated validation. alejandra mentioned that functions should support a method to link to a resource that supports validation 09:30:12 ack kcoyle 09:30:35 kcoyle: I am concerned abot exploding complexity if we go for supporting automation 09:31:44 q+ 09:31:48 ... the ontology was originally for describing profiles and related resources. In the roles there is conformance test, so it does drift into the automation of functions. We should look at description first, but only move cautiously into automation 09:31:56 ack antoine 09:32:37 antoine: I think at the moment profile ontology is purely in the realm of description. I don't think we are moving to semantic overcommittment 09:33:05 ... when something is represented as a skos Concept it has a very low ambition, and that to me is reassuring 09:33:53 +q 09:35:42 ack alejandra 09:36:09 alejandra: this clarifies my point. A role associate with a shacl doc indicates what is required for validation 09:36:24 antoine:I think that could be linked to the resource 09:36:38 AndreaPerego: you have to say for validating what .... 09:37:35 antoine: for the moment that pattern is OK so long as there is only one link between the profile and the descriptor. The diagram in the document shows only the simplest case. 09:38:05 ... I think at this point cardinality issues are best left aside 09:38:06 q+ 09:38:07 ack kcoyle 09:38:20 Agree 09:39:11 kcoyle: I find the diagram confusing in that the validation isn't happening on the profile, but on instance data to see if it conforms to the profile. We are describing rules for the profile, there is no data to act on 09:39:17 q+ 09:39:38 ... I feel that some of this diagram drifts into application scope 09:40:11 ... what is the relation between validation and the profile. the validation is on instance data that might conform to the requirements of the profile 09:40:54 LarsG: You can also have a profile that validates other profiles 09:41:17 q+ 09:41:26 AndreaPerego: The roles here , do they really need to be in the ontology, or can we do without it 09:41:38 ... ? 09:41:54 ack Jaroslav_Pullmann 09:42:37 danbri has joined #dxwg 09:43:15 Jaroslav_Pullmann: the role could be localised to a particular distribution. this relates to discussions we have had about dstributions conformant to a profile - the resource role could be a complex relation linking specific distribution to profile with a specific function. I'm missing something 09:43:15 here 09:43:46 kcoyle: so are you asking how do you connect instance data to a profile. is it an n-ary relation ? 09:44:08 AndreaPerego: This would make the diagram more complex 09:44:32 antoine: and I'm not sure, perhaps we need a more specialised profile 09:44:56 ack antoine 09:45:04 q+ 09:45:15 antoine: can Jaroslav_Pullmann please send specific examples 09:45:39 ... then we can see how they are represented with the model. we need concrete examples 09:46:11 ... I think we can do without roles, but I don't think it having them in the work is an impediment, we can give it a try 09:46:30 i'm back ... 09:46:41 can I ask for a quick summary 09:46:54 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 09:46:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego 09:47:03 ack kcoyle 09:47:34 kcoyle: i can think of use cases for the roles, e.g. ways in shacl to include labels, descriptions or comments 09:48:35 ... I can imagine wanting to have certain components (display, forms, etc) and get those, but you don't know the location. If you just want to validate then roles can be skipped 09:49:00 ... we have yet to define the baseline profile. 09:49:04