- 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>
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.
Best,
Ruben
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2017 14:20:21 UTC