DCMI RDF AP Task Group
http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles
Meeting date: May 7, 2015
Meeting link: https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/#/meetings/detail?uuid=MDAL0I2WSSY4CQBPV7OKXPJGYL-JV0D&rnd=532830.21364
Attendees: Karen, Antoine, Hugo, Valentine, LarsG
Regrets: Corey, Thomas
1. DCMI and W3C Requirements
DCMI Req Database: http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/
Requirement discussion pad: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/requirements_analysis
New cleaned list: http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/Requirements
all W3C drafts (5) https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page#Proposals
W3C Use Cases and Requirements: http://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/
ACTION: Stefanie & Antoine to interlink DCAP Reqs with W3C Reqs and send result to W3C WG, after Karen and Tom have compiled the list of requirements
--DROPPING
ACTION: Karen to continue the comparison of W3C and DCMI requirements when W3C document is available.
-- DONE
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bCpQVyxI-N2Ca83umvQD8OKTdsDyG6Sz-E8Qo3v8ynM/
ACTION: Hugo to work on aligning requirements from W3C to DCMI -- adding to start done by Karen (who is available to chat if Hugo needs background info
--DONE
Review Hugo's email and suggestions: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=DC-ARCHITECTURE;41aa27ca.1505
Possible new alignments from W3C to DC AP
- R5.9.1: supported by R43 (using constant values in the expression)
OK. For example dates
- R5.9.3: supported by R44 (using regex pattern “\w{length}” )
It depends on the Regex language (if it has look-ahead)
We can update our requirement with an example on length.
Done.
- R(5.)11: supported by R25 if it supports object properties
We can't really agree
ACTION: Hugo to come with examples for these requirements
- R11.5: supported by R-117 if a profile can be considered as a (wider) context
R11.5 is more about software context (expressivity/capacity of software that does the validation) and R117 about the data/application context
R-117 is closer to the notion of shapes.
Though shapes target a specific kind of graph
How to identify that graph has not been determined. It could be rdf:type or another way.
DSP was doing something similar but ran into problem. It was based on (combination) properties.
So R-117 is relally related to R7.1 and R5.1.
Our notion of application profile may be more general.
We should try to do the rest by email.
ACTION: Karen & Valentine: Develop one or more test cases based on Europeana data
Karen asking where to store these for W3C - not getting an answer :-(
2. Core DCMI Requirements
Stefanie's core has been added by Karen (with links to DSP) at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bCpQVyxI-N2Ca83umvQD8OKTdsDyG6Sz-E8Qo3v8ynM/
everyone should vote by adding their initials!
Karen: we could re-order them by the number of votes.
Top: cardinality, domain and range...
Valentine: it would be a pity to drop some after some discussion
Karen: W3C is paying attention
Organizing a core may help us organize the document
W3C is using a distinction "basic/complex"
Antoine: we won't throw requirements, just put spotlight on some reqs.
ACTION: Karen to send an email re-organization reqs, to see if the notion of 'core' help us to make things clearer
Hugo: some complex reqs would allow, if implemented, to meet other simpler requirements.
... which one to put in the core in such cases?
Karen: it's a value of this exercise that we identify these dependencies
ACTION: Hugo to try to organize reqs in abstract requirements, trying to re-use Thomas' classification in the DB
3. Other requirement actions
ACTION: Corey and Karen to write up cases of validation with de-referencing or local caches, to be sent to W3C
R-71 Conditional properties http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/78
ACTION: Stefanie and Valentine find or make up examples and them in the description of the requirement
--ONGOING
Express requirements as RDF, mapping between DSP and our requirements
Requirement changes:
R-67-CLASSIFY-PROPERTIES-ACCORDING-TO-OCCURRENCE -> Boolean property patterns
propA or propB or propC (exclusive or)
propD if type=X [remove from db]
R-129-MACHINE-UNDERSTANDABLE-CONCRETE-SYNTAXES-FORMULATION-CONSTRAINTS -> Machine understandable syntax
ACTION: Karen will fix these two in the database; Antoine did them in the wiki [DONE]
Hugo's second email with suggestions
ACTION: Antoine to look at unclear requirements in Hugo's email
Abstract requirements - already discussed above
Glossary - suggestion to postpone until we have time!
4. AOB, next calls
============= Remaining items, for next calls
X. Coordination with BIBFRAME
Thomas' evaluation of BIBFRAME AP
http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/BibframeAnalysis
X. Coordination with Hydra
Hydra Metadata Working Group: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/hydra/Hydra+Metadata+Working+Group
Portland Common Data Model: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FF/Portland+Common+Data+Model
ACTION: Karen: post this link to W3C group - on hold until W3C group gets to the right point
Fedora4's using linked data fragments - http://linkeddatafragments.org/ ?
X. Possible Next Steps: http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/requirements_next_steps
Agreed: defined what an RDF AP is, after agreeing on Core