RE: Profiles in Linked Data

> So why don't you include both DCAT and PREMIS in the description and
> let the client figure it out?

Because that would mean that my payload would be at least twice as large (or more, depending on how many profiles I want to support). Further, a client that actually wants json but asks for json-ld (because that is the content-type the server supports) has no way to figure out which keys to evaluate and which not. Also too much information can be a constraint when we deal with clients with limited computing capabilities. Lastly I might want to specifically constrain my response to a specific profile in order to be consistent with a certain rdf shape.

> I haven't yet encountered a use case where profiles would be necessary.
> 
> WebArch only talks about representations (descriptions) that differ in
> terms of media type:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#dereference-details


Yes, but I still see a necessity for negotiation profiles, too, not only media types.

Best,

Lars
> 
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de> wrote:
> > Martynas,
> >
> >> As you wrote, media type is orthogonal to profiles. To retrieve
> >> RDF/XML, you would use content negotiation (Accept header).
> >>
> >> You would need to run the Graphity processor that would match URI
> >> templates and execute SPARQL queries from the sitemap ontology.
> >>
> >> Sure, instead of query strings
> >
> > OK. But that would require the client to re-write the resource URI to put in
> the correct query string.
> >
> >> you could use Accept-Profile/Profile or
> >> similar headers to advertise profiles and their preference. It's just
> >> that the uptake for new custom HTTP headers will be slow, so there's
> >> not much practical advantage.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, it seems like you want different descriptions of a
> >> resource -- so it seems to me that these should in fact be different
> >> resources? That could be split into
> >> http://example.org/some/resource/dcat and
> >> http://example.org/some/resource/premis, for example.
> >
> > Well, at least to me it is two descriptions of the same resource (much as a
> mobile-optimised website is the same resource as the "real" website, but sort
> of minimalised). Particularly when I refer to concepts, e. g. "Semantic Web" [1],
> or persons, e. g. "Tim Berners-Lee" [2], the URI references the RWO in no
> particular format. When I client actually wants to _do_ something with that
> information, the client and the server need to negotiate a way to find the best
> description. That is where profiles (or shapes) enter the equation.
> >
> > [1] http://d-nb.info/gnd/4688372-1

> > [2] http://d-nb.info/gnd/121649091

> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Lars

Received on Thursday, 7 May 2015 13:25:07 UTC