- From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 12:24:55 +0000
- To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- CC: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,
> 2) In the context of profile negotiation, Ruben, Herbert and I agreed on the definition of profile as “a set of structural and semantic constraints of representations, which can apply in addition to syntactic, structural, and semantic constraints defined by a MIME type.” [3]
Following up on this:
a) DCAT can have a more specific definition of a(n application) profile, that is fine.
b) The reason we chose the above definition is that the same mechanisms
that we will need to create for very specific DCAT profiles
can also be reused for more generic profiles.
By solving the generic problem, we don't exclude other usage.
So as long as the above definition does not conflict with DCAT's definition,
DCAT can define application profiles in any way that's more specific.
Best,
Ruben
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2017 12:25:32 UTC