- From: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 10:19:26 +0100
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
- Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKckEu7LJbogaymiHioFDFdn6vkb353wF6H+gWagbAAqYUX68Q@mail.gmail.com>
Karen, One of the Distributions of the AP could (should?) be a human-readable document that describes it. See for example: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/release/dcat-ap-v11 for several Distributions of the European DCAT-AP. Makx Op 7 dec. 2017 09:12 schreef "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>: > > > On 12/6/17 2:42 PM, Makx Dekkers wrote: > > Karen, > > > > As far as I understand it, DCAT also makes the distinction between the > > 'abstract' Dataset and the 'physical' Distribution as its manifestation. > > > > Could an Application Profile be modeled as a Dataset? Or is that a dumb > > idea? > > Makx, I think it *is* a dataset, and if "abstract" means "not a > particular serialization" then, yes, the distinction holds in my mind. > However, the fact is that if the AP has been created, it has been > created in some actual form that can be expressed in ones and zeroes. So > there does need to be a "physical" form for conneg to work against. > > One possible distinction here is that APs are human-created while many > datasets are the result of machine processes. > > kc > > > > > Makx > > > > Makx > > > > Makx. > > > > Op 6 dec. 2017 23:07 schreef "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net > > <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>: > > > > > > > > On 12/6/17 10:45 AM, mail@makxdekkers.com > > <mailto:mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote: > > > Karen, > > > > > >> Not all access to APs will be through content negotiation, AFAIK, > > so we have to consider > > >> other access avenues, such as a document at is located on a web > > site, profiles in wikis, etc. > > > > > > The expressions of the profile might be at > > > > > > http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.rdf > > <http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.rdf> > > > http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.xml > > <http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.xml> > > > http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.json > > <http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.json> > > > > > > So it would be possible to access them without content > > negotiation. But I guess, we need to consider content negotiation > > because our deliverable is called "Content Negotiation by > > Application Profile" > > > > > >> If there is a "concept" AP it needs to be something that can be > > represented, > > >> thus is not entirely abstract. > > > > > > In my mind, it *is* "abstract" in the same sense that FRBR Work is > > an abstract entity. > > > > Makx, the FRBR work is proving to be very difficult to implement > > precisely because it is so hard to be precise about an abstraction. > If > > the AP is "abstract" in that sense it has no actual existence in any > > written or coded form, which means that it cannot be "converted" to > rdf, > > html, xml, or whatever. It is ethereal, an essentially non-existent > as > > any "thing". I don't know how we can work with such an entity. > > > > kc > > > > > > > > > > Makx. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Karen Coyle > > kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net > > m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> (Signal) > > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600> > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal) > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 >
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2017 09:19:54 UTC