These two approaches can co-exist - in the same way an HTML page can have explicit links to download, and these can also be accessed via MIME-type negotiation. IMHO The label and semantics of the link characterisations and the negotiation facets should be aligned. Rob On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 at 06:00 Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de> wrote: > Hi Ruben, all, > > On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 8:07 PM, Ruben Verborgh [mailto: > Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be] wrote: > > > > All a profile needs formally is an identifier - with the semantics of > comparability. > > > > I agree, but may I suggest a slightly more specific definition for our > purposes? > > > > Given the context we operate in, it might be good to agree that > > a profile needs an IRI as identifier (with comparability semantics), > > and, whenever possible, this IRI should be an HTTP URL. > > > > That way, the identifier of a profile can be dereferenced, > > which allows a server to further detail that profile, > > for instance, through SHACL, HTML, > > or even a standard that is yet to be created. > > I see two possible ways here: > 1) We have one identifier for the profile document _and_ the different > schemas that implement that profile and use content negotiation to serve > the most appropriate version. > 2) we have one identifier for the profile document and one identifier for > each schema implementing the profile and link from the profile document to > the schemas using the Link-header and (in html) <link>-elements. > > Both ways have their pros and cons. I'd tend to suggest 2) since the > profile document and the associated schemas might not really be considered > the same thing and thus should have different URIs. What do you think? > > Best, > > Lars > >
Received on Thursday, 17 August 2017 21:56:48 UTC