- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 02:04:01 -0800
- To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
- Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
On 12/7/17 1:19 AM, Makx Dekkers wrote: > 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. Yes, definitely. However, I don't see that as a requirement, although it is something that I assumed. For example, in Use Case 5.41 [1] I wrote about "knowing" and in my mind that was human "knowing". Another use case could be that conneg returns a profile that the receiving application could use to validate the data that the profile describes, without human intervention. If someone has that as a use case (I don't, personally), could that someone please create a use case for it? Thanks. kc [1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID41 > > Makx > > Op 7 dec. 2017 09:12 schreef "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net > <mailto: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> > > <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>>: > > > > > > > > On 12/6/17 10:45 AM, mail@makxdekkers.com > <mailto:mail@makxdekkers.com> > > <mailto: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.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.xml > <http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.xml>> > > > http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.json > <http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.json> > > <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> > <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> http://kcoyle.net > > m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> <tel:1-510-435-8234 > <tel:1-510-435-8234>> (Signal) > > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600> > <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600> > > > > -- > 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 10:04:35 UTC