Profiles vs. extensions

Hi

as part of the profile discussion we are going to run into the distinction
between a profile setting rules for how to use a specification, and an
extension to a specification.

IMHO these may reconciled through extension points:

:hereIsAServiceDescription rdfs:range :AbstractServiceDescription

myns:MyRESTServiceDescriptionModel rdfs:subClass of  :
AbstractServiceDescription


i.e. a valid subclass providing a concrete model for an object is a
restriction on usage of the underlying abstract extension point definition
- hence extensions are "application profiles"

but we may also have application profiles that provide rules for concrete
properties, and do not introduce new models.

Is this a working hypothesis we can live with and avoid too much angst
regarding treating support for profiles and extensions as separate Use
Cases, but rather flavours of the same one?

For the record, I am willing to trial implementation of such a metamodel as
part of the modelling the OGC's specification and definition domain - and
hopefully be able to convince the membership to accept a Linked Data
implementation based on this. (Linked into specref of course Phil!)

Rob Atkinson