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

Re: Start of profiles analysis page - 2nd reply

From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 10:59:31 +0000
To: "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
CC: "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>, "mail@makxdekkers.com" <mail@makxdekkers.com>
Message-ID: <D3B1B9D3-D8F8-4154-89E3-D66C1CFD1C03@ugent.be>
Hi Karen,

> 1. How can we (or "can we") define an AP that works for both RDF/OWL and
> non-RDF/OWL metadata? Or do we need to provide more than on option in
> our guidance?

By distinguishing between the profile as a concept
and a representation of a profile as a document
(similar to what Makx wrote).

For example, we can have an AP for a certain government,
and specification documents can exist for the RDF case
and for a non-RDF case.

A concrete way to realize this is with content negotiation
on the IRI of the profile. For example
could result in HTML, RDF, XML Schema, or JSON schema
depending on the Accept headers of the client.

> 1a. Do we require that terms are identified with an IRI? Non-RDF/OWL may
> not have IRIs.

Only when the content type of the response is RDF.

> 2. Could an RDF/OWL-based AP define terms within the AP?

It _could_ do that,
but it seems more appropriate to define this elsewhere.

Let me make that more concrete.
Suppose that the following is a profile:
then it is possible to have terms such as
but probably more appropriate to have
such that the term definition is not tied to the profile
and can more flexibly be used in other profiles.


Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2017 11:00:14 UTC

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