Re: [dxwg] A profile may be (partially) "implemented" by "schemas" (in OWL, SHACL, XML Schema...) that allow different levels of data validation [ID37] (5.37)

Sorry if the use scenarios in the white paper aren't spelled out in detail--they leave a bit to the imagination. The gist of ID21 is there needs to be something in the metadata so a client can parse the distributions for the dataset and pick the one it can work with-- I thought that's one of the possible purposes for a conformsTo profile declaration (correct me if I'm wrong and I'll shut up, don't want to bark up the wrong tree). At the level of making stuff work, it includes the information model and serialization scheme, ideally the vocabularies used. In the XML world conveyed by asserting that the representation validates according to some schema and maybe schematron rules.  In other serialization schemes it might be JSON schema or some SHACL, but they don't tell me my xml app is going to work.  
Telling a client that a metadata catalog provides ISO19115 metadata (a dataset/information model level declaration; conformsTo could point the to ISOspec) only gets one a short step towards interoperability; what you really need to know is that metadata representations according to e.g. the Energistics profile, or the the INSPIRE profile or the ANZLIC profile are available.  (metadata examples used here with hopes that more people are familiar than with the GeoSciML/OGC services world).  Each of those profiles might have different validation tests; other profiles might not have executable validation tests (conformance by inspection and trust).

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by smrgeoinfo
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/273#issuecomment-440464516 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2018 23:20:20 UTC