- 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>
Makx, 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. Best, Lars
Received on Sunday, 10 December 2017 13:35:03 UTC