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

Re: Start of profiles analysis page - 2nd reply

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 00:12:31 -0800
To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <eee96d16-4cbe-b0c0-c692-9b14c1ac2024@kcoyle.net>


On 12/6/17 2:42 PM, Makx Dekkers wrote:
> Karen,
> 
> As far as I understand it, DCAT also makes the distinction between the
> 'abstract' Dataset and the 'physical' Distribution as its manifestation.
> 
> Could an Application Profile be modeled as a Dataset? Or is that a dumb
> idea? 

Makx, I think it *is* a dataset, and if "abstract" means "not a
particular serialization" then, yes, the distinction holds in my mind.
However, the fact is that if the AP has been created, it has been
created in some actual form that can be expressed in ones and zeroes. So
there does need to be a "physical" form for conneg to work against.

One possible distinction here is that APs are human-created while many
datasets are the result of machine processes.

kc

> 
> Makx 
> 
> Makx
> 
> Makx. 
> 
> Op 6 dec. 2017 23:07 schreef "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>:
> 
> 
> 
>     On 12/6/17 10:45 AM, mail@makxdekkers.com
>     <mailto:mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote:
>     > Karen,
>     >
>     >> Not all access to APs will be through content negotiation, AFAIK,
>     so we have to consider
>     >> other access avenues, such as a document at is located on a web
>     site, profiles in wikis, etc.
>     >
>     > The expressions of the profile might be at
>     >
>     > http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.rdf
>     <http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.rdf>
>     > http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.xml
>     <http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.xml>
>     > http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.json
>     <http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.json>
>     >
>     > So it would be possible to access them without content
>     negotiation. But I guess, we need to consider content negotiation
>     because our deliverable is called "Content Negotiation by
>     Application Profile"
>     >
>     >> If there is a "concept" AP it needs to be something that can be
>     represented,
>     >> thus is not entirely abstract.
>     >
>     > In my mind, it *is* "abstract" in the same sense that FRBR Work is
>     an abstract entity.
> 
>     Makx, the FRBR work is proving to be very difficult to implement
>     precisely because it is so hard to be precise about an abstraction. If
>     the AP is "abstract" in that sense it has no actual existence in any
>     written or coded form, which means that it cannot be "converted" to rdf,
>     html, xml, or whatever. It is ethereal, an essentially non-existent as
>     any "thing". I don't know how we can work with such an entity.
> 
>     kc
> 
> 
>     >
>     > Makx.
>     >
>     >
>     >
> 
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> (Signal)
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600>
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2017 08:13:01 UTC

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