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
    http://example.org/profiles/xyz/
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:
    http://example.org/profiles/xyz/
then it is possible to have terms such as
    http://example.org/profiles/xyz/#foo
    http://example.org/profiles/xyz/#bar
but probably more appropriate to have
   http://example.org/ontologies/abc/#foo
   http://example.org/ontologies/abc/#bar
such that the term definition is not tied to the profile
and can more flexibly be used in other profiles.

Best,

Ruben
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