W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > December 2017

Re: Start of profiles analysis page - 2nd reply

From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:19:13 +0000
To: "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
CC: "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2E1E4634-FB13-4468-837E-D7A9BFE63EAB@ugent.be>
Hi Karen,

> Actually, there are other, more relevant, distinctions.

That might be the case indeed.

> I'm not sure what "profiles" alone means

A working definition from an earlier thread was:

A profile defines a set of additional structural and constraints and/or semantic interpretations
that can apply to a given document in addition to any rules—particularly syntactical ones—
mandated by the media type used to serialize the information content.

> but there are two other concepts that we might
> be able to define:
> application profile - this includes profiles of executable files such as [1]
> metadata application profile - profiles that define "a set of metadata
> elements, policies, and guidelines defined for a particular application."[2]
> I suspect that [2] is closer to our charge, but we can debate that.

These are all fine with me,
and I don't have any strong opinion on this.

The only strong opinion I have is that a profile,
for the purpose of content negotiation,
is something very generic, independent of DCAT.

To indicate with an example how generic I want it,
the following would be considered a profile:
    “has a fullName field at the top level with a string as value"
This seems to be more generic than what Dublin Core
defines as an Application Profile, hence "profile".

The reason for defining this at such a generic level
is so we are able to define profile-based content negotiation
sufficiently broadly, not just for (DCAT) AP.


Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2017 14:20:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:41:58 UTC