- From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 10:59:31 +0000
- To: "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- CC: "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>, "mail@makxdekkers.com" <mail@makxdekkers.com>
Hi Karen,
> 1. How can we (or "can we") define an AP that works for both RDF/OWL and
> non-RDF/OWL metadata? Or do we need to provide more than on option in
> our guidance?
By distinguishing between the profile as a concept
and a representation of a profile as a document
(similar to what Makx wrote).
For example, we can have an AP for a certain government,
and specification documents can exist for the RDF case
and for a non-RDF case.
A concrete way to realize this is with content negotiation
on the IRI of the profile. For example
http://example.org/profiles/xyz/
could result in HTML, RDF, XML Schema, or JSON schema
depending on the Accept headers of the client.
> 1a. Do we require that terms are identified with an IRI? Non-RDF/OWL may
> not have IRIs.
Only when the content type of the response is RDF.
> 2. Could an RDF/OWL-based AP define terms within the AP?
It _could_ do that,
but it seems more appropriate to define this elsewhere.
Let me make that more concrete.
Suppose that the following is a profile:
http://example.org/profiles/xyz/
then it is possible to have terms such as
http://example.org/profiles/xyz/#foo
http://example.org/profiles/xyz/#bar
but probably more appropriate to have
http://example.org/ontologies/abc/#foo
http://example.org/ontologies/abc/#bar
such that the term definition is not tied to the profile
and can more flexibly be used in other profiles.
Best,
Ruben
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2017 11:00:14 UTC