W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > January 2019

Re: [dxwg] Profiles are "named collections of properties" or metadata terms (if not RDF) [ID41] (5.41) (#275)

From: kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:56:19 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-453584035-1547225778-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@aisaac "there can be DCAT profiles for data catalogues (which is metadata) and profiles for the statistical data that is in a dataset." I totally agree on the separation between descriptive data (metadata) and instance data, and that profiles can consist of element sets for either type. 

Profiles are sets of elements intended to define data. Those elements have names (e.g. dct:title). The named elements may be for units of instance data or units of descriptive metadata. The profile itself should have an identifier by which it can be referred.

So:
Profiles are sets of elements that define instance data or metadata. Profiles *should/must* have an unique identifier or name.

?? It's very hard to do as a single sentence, and I don't know if we've decided that something is NOT a profile if it doesn't have an identifier. Even saying "must" does not mean that a profile without an identifier is not a profile, only that it doesn't meet our best practices. So having the name in the definition gives us a philosophical problem, IMO, and that should instead be a requirement, not a definition.

I'm not sure this helps, but you should give it your best shot and then I think we should consider this done.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/275#issuecomment-453584035 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 11 January 2019 16:56:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:45:06 UTC