- From: Andrea Perego via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 20:56:47 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@kcoyle said: > @rob-metalinkage Although profiles must have IRIs to be available for content negotiation, can we exclude profiles that, for example, exist on paper? The answer may be "yes" for DCAT profiles, since DCAT is an ontology. Our definition does not specify that every profile is online. If we are limiting to that, it needs to be in the definition. I agree. I would very much careful in tightly binding the requirement for a profile to have a URI with the one requiring such URI to be dereferenceable. Also looking at profile conneg, just having a URI for a profile would be a dramatic improvement wrt the current situation and it would cover the most common scenarios - e.g., where clients know which profile they are looking for, and they are not interested in getting a profile description and/or definition (they just want a resource, representing by using the requested profile). I see the ability to deference a profile URI as an additional (more advanced) requirement, bound to use scenarios requiring to get access to the profile description/definition. If we put them together, this may have the unintended result of limiting the adoption of and the support to the "main" one (a URI for a profile). We'd better be modular. -- GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/214#issuecomment-392185167 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 25 May 2018 20:56:49 UTC