W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > December 2017

RE: Start of profiles analysis page - 2nd reply

From: <Peter.Winstanley@gov.scot>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 16:31:40 +0000
To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
CC: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BEA9D5BE2C1C76448E2955B1FD8769E101C29B9201@s0393g.scotland.gov.uk>
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue25/app-profiles is quite old now, but is helpful in this discussion

I think a critical aspect is that of bringing together pre-existing components - i.e. in the application profile there is nothing that you won't find elsewhere

Do colleagues agree that this is an important characteristic of an AP?

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] 
Sent: 05 December 2017 14:36
To: Ruben Verborgh
Cc: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Start of profiles analysis page - 2nd reply



On 12/5/17 6:19 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Hi Karen,
> 
>> Actually, there are other, more relevant, distinctions.
> 
> That might be the case indeed.
> 
>> I'm not sure what "profiles" alone means
> 
> A working definition from an earlier thread was:
> 
> A profile defines a set of additional structural and constraints and/or semantic interpretations
> that can apply to a given document in addition to any rules-particularly syntactical ones-
> mandated by the media type used to serialize the information content.
> 
>> but there are two other concepts that we might
>> be able to define:
>>
>> application profile - this includes profiles of executable files such as [1]
>>
>> metadata application profile - profiles that define "a set of metadata
>> elements, policies, and guidelines defined for a particular application."[2]
>>
>> I suspect that [2] is closer to our charge, but we can debate that.
> 
> These are all fine with me,
> and I don't have any strong opinion on this.
> 
> The only strong opinion I have is that a profile,
> for the purpose of content negotiation,
> is something very generic, independent of DCAT.

Indeed, "application profile" as defined in our charge is independent of
DCAT. Whether it is "very generic" depends of course on what one means
by that.

> 
> To indicate with an example how generic I want it,
> the following would be considered a profile:
>     "has a fullName field at the top level with a string as value"
> This seems to be more generic than what Dublin Core
> defines as an Application Profile, hence "profile".
> 

I think it all depends on whether you have the ability to read and
understand such a natural language phrase in a way that is useful within
content negotiation. I have generally assumed that a useful profile
would be some more "machine friendly", such that defining a property (in
the form of an identifier that is unambiguous and a value type that is a
known data type) would be the minimum of utility.

> The reason for defining this at such a generic level
> is so we are able to define profile-based content negotiation
> sufficiently broadly, not just for (DCAT) AP.

Rest assured that in no way are we charged with defining DCAT APs.
However, calling such a deliverable "profile" would in my opinion be
overly ambiguous, since there is nothing inherent in the term "profile"
to intend that it has anything to do with data processing. I strongly
suggest that we be more specific in our terminology.

kc

> 
> Best,
> 
> Ruben
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

*******************************************************************************************************************************
This email has been received from an external party and has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. 
*******************************************************************************************************************************


********************************************************************** 
This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender immediately by return.

Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.


Tha am post-d seo (agus faidhle neo ceanglan còmhla ris) dhan neach neo luchd-ainmichte a-mhàin. Chan eil e ceadaichte a chleachdadh ann an dòigh sam bith, a’ toirt a-steach còraichean, foillseachadh neo sgaoileadh, gun chead. Ma ’s e is gun d’fhuair sibh seo gun fhiosd’, bu choir cur às dhan phost-d agus lethbhreac sam bith air an t-siostam agaibh agus fios a leigeil chun neach a sgaoil am post-d gun dàil.

Dh’fhaodadh gum bi teachdaireachd sam bith bho Riaghaltas na h-Alba air a chlàradh neo air a sgrùdadh airson dearbhadh gu bheil an siostam ag obair gu h-èifeachdach neo airson adhbhar laghail eile. Dh’fhaodadh nach  eil beachdan anns a’ phost-d seo co-ionann ri beachdan Riaghaltas na h-Alba. 
**********************************************************************
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2017 16:32:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:44:56 UTC