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

Re: Start of profiles analysis page - 2nd reply

From: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 10:19:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKckEu7LJbogaymiHioFDFdn6vkb353wF6H+gWagbAAqYUX68Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Karen,

One of the Distributions of the AP could (should?) be a human-readable
document that describes it.
See for example: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/release/dcat-ap-v11 for
several Distributions of the European DCAT-AP.

Makx

Op 7 dec. 2017 09:12 schreef "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@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 09:19:54 UTC

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