Re: Requirements for profiles

I dont think there is any inconsistencies between usages of "profile" ,
"application profile" and "generic profile".  There perhaps seems to be a
conflation of "application profile" and the specific case of a profile of
DCAT.

DCAT is a specification with a broad community scope, and will need
profiling to be used effectively, as seen.

Arbitrary separation of requirements will add a lot of extra detail and
probably a level of inconsistency and confusion. Lets just use DCAT profile
as a Use Case to make sure DCAT can describe profile usage well.

Rob

On 19 Nov 2017 04:34, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 11/18/17 4:26 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> > Hi Karen,
> >
> >> Ruben, I think this is a variant view of profiles, so we should discuss
> >> it as a group. The APs that exist today for DCAT are complete
> >> descriptions of all of the elements of a metadata schema.
> >
> > Just a reminder that there is a difference
> > between "profile" in the generic sense,
> > and "DCAT profile" in the specific sense.
> >
> > So there is no contradiction, as I was talking about generic profiles.
>
> Therefore we need a good strong definition of "profile" so we can talk
> about this.
>
> We need to know what functions a profile supports, in its most general
> terms. The Dublin Core profiles may be more specific than this, because
> their definition includes "application":
>
> "The term profile is widely used to refer to a document that describes
> how standards or specifications are deployed to support the requirements
> of a particular application, function, community, or context. In the
> metadata community, the term _application profile_has been applied to
> describe the tailoring of standards for specific applications." [1]
>
> The AP in DCAT-AP is "Application Profile" although there isn't a
> general definition of what is meant by AP. The document says:
>
> "The objective behind DCAT is to facilitate data findability,
> cross-reference and interoperability between data catalogues on the web
> by adding a thin layer of agreed upon metadata, to ensure consistency." [2]
>
> Our charter also refers to "application profiles" and the deliverable
> reads:
>
> "Guidance on publishing application profiles of vocabularies.
> A definition of what is meant by an application profile and an
> explanation of one or more methods for publishing and sharing them." [3]
>
> If "profile" is more general than "application profile", we need a
> definition for that. We may also determine that defining "profile"
> generically, while possibly useful to the world at large, is out of
> scope for our work.
>
> Could you please create a "straw person" definition for "generic
> profile" as a starting point? That would help us begin to understand
> what it means.
>
> kc
> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/
> [2]
> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/solution/dcat-application-
> profile-data-portals-europe
> [3] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/charter
>
> >
> > Also, not all profiles have to be "combinable",
> > so it is fine if DCAT profiles are not.
> >
> >> As I read them
> >> they cannot be combined as they are, nor can parts or fragments be
> >> combined as new profiles because they haven't been designed to be
> >> uniformly combinable. That is an interesting interpretation but not one
> >> that we have yet as a requirement.
> >
> > We should, I think. It follows from 5.3.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Ruben
> >
> >
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
>