Thanks, Eric! I had forgotten the actual content of the document, and
that it included properties for profiles. I'm adding it to the DXWG
page. Did you produce an RDF ontology as well?

Let me say that I really like the use of mandatory / repeatable as
yes/no elements. The RDF validation languages [1] require the use of
minimum / maximum that are expressed as integers, and therefore optional
is expressed as minimum=0. This makes sense from a programming point of
view, but I don't think it's very human friendly. In some work I'm doing
with the Dublin Core community (not yet ready to show), I'm going to
push for the mandatory / repeatable version.

kc

[1] SHACL https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/
    ShEx http://www.w3.org/ns/shex http://shex.io

On 12/16/17 3:59 AM, Eric Miller wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Dec 15, 2017, at 5:45 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> If you hadn't encountered them before, BIBFRAMEmay have introduced you
>> to application profiles. As I understand it, BIBFRAME was initially
>> designed as a flexible bibliographic data format with the idea that
>> specific community needs could be addressed through profiles, which were
>> presented in a BIBFRAME 1.0 document (which I cannot find in the
>> archive). BIBFRA.ME, which some of you are familiar with, makes use of
>> profiles to address different data needs.
> 
> BIBFRAME Profiles: Introduction and Specification
> Draft — 5 May 2014
> https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/bibframe-profiles.html
> 
> Which was the result of the Scribe implementation
> 
> https://github.com/zepheira/bibframe-scribe
> 
> and leveraged some of the following profiles
> 
> https://github.com/zepheira/bibframe-scribe-profiles
> https://github.com/zepheira/bibflow-profiles
> 
>> The BIBFRAME work leaned heavily on work don in
>> the Dublin Core community. [5]
> 
> Correct. The BIBFRAME profile (draft) was based on previous lessons
> learned in implementing DCMI Description Set Profiles. 
> 
>> The announcement below is for the first draft of the use cases and
>> requirements (UCR) for the group, which covers an update to the DCAT
>> standard but also requirements for profiles (6.8). If you are working
>> with profiles, or have any interest in them, please take a look at the
>> UCR document and send any comments to the email list given there.
> 
> Congratulations on the launch, and thank you for revitalizing this very
> important piece of standards puzzle. 
> 
> —e
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600