Re: ID48 - Relationship of profile to validation

These two approaches can co-exist - in the same way an HTML page can have
explicit links to download, and these can also be accessed via MIME-type

IMHO The label and semantics of the link characterisations and the
negotiation facets should be aligned.


On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 at 06:00 Svensson, Lars <> wrote:

> Hi Ruben, all,
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 8:07 PM, Ruben Verborgh [mailto:
>] wrote:
> > > All a profile needs formally is an identifier - with the semantics of
> comparability.
> >
> > I agree, but may I suggest a slightly more specific definition for our
> purposes?
> >
> > Given the context we operate in, it might be good to agree that
> > a profile needs an IRI as identifier (with comparability semantics),
> > and, whenever possible, this IRI should be an HTTP URL.
> >
> > That way, the identifier of a profile can be dereferenced,
> > which allows a server to further detail that profile,
> > for instance, through SHACL, HTML,
> > or even a standard that is yet to be created.
> I see two possible ways here:
> 1) We have one identifier for the profile document _and_ the different
> schemas that implement that profile and use content negotiation to serve
> the most appropriate version.
> 2) we have one identifier for the profile document and one identifier for
> each schema implementing the profile and link from the profile document to
> the schemas using the Link-header and (in html) <link>-elements.
> Both ways have their pros and cons. I'd tend to suggest 2) since the
> profile document and the associated schemas might not really be considered
> the same thing and thus should have different URIs. What do you think?
> Best,
> Lars

Received on Thursday, 17 August 2017 21:56:48 UTC