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

RE: Conneg definition was: Re: Start of profiles analysis page - 2nd reply

From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:34:35 +0000
To: "mail@makxdekkers.com" <mail@makxdekkers.com>
CC: "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <785e3bf6a2b14ae8b015d588241a92b5@dnb.de>

On Saturday, December 09, 2017 12:18 PM, mail@makxdekkers.com [mailto:mail@makxdekkers.com] wrote:

> If I understand the discussion, I think we are talking about two types of profiles:
> 1. A metadata profile that the DCAT description conforms to – this is what DCAT-AP-EU
> and the national and regional profiles in Europe are about – to allow a
> consumer/harvester of metadata to ask for a particular view of the metadata
> 2. A data profile that the data in the file described using DCAT conforms to, to allow
> software that wants to fetch the data to get a particular view of the data

I'd say that technically (for the purpose of describing and negotiating profiles) those two are the same: It's about describing the structure and constraints of data and in that respect, a DCAT description is only a piece of data. So no, in my view we only have one type of profile.
> In DCAT-AP-EU, there are two properties to support these types:
> • The property dct:conformsTo for dcat:CatalogRecord to point to the metadata profile
> (e.g. DCAT-AP-EU)
> • The property dct:conformsTo for dcat:Distribution to point to the data profile

The two different profiles are describing the structure of two different datasets: the DCAT description itself (which can be seen as a simple dataset) and the structure of the dataset the DCAT description describes. 

> Should we make that distinction clear in our discussion?

I don't see a difference.


Received on Sunday, 10 December 2017 13:35:03 UTC

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