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

Re: Requirements for profiles

From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 21:16:22 +0000
To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
CC: "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C1DFF14B-E38C-4C26-BE34-E0407E242D2B@ugent.be>
Hi Lars,

> I have slight issues with "on top of that document's media type". To me profiles are kind of orthogonal to media types. A good example are ODRL profiles [1] that define semantic constraints for data structures. Those data structures can then be expressed in XML [2], JSON [3] or RDF (and the RDF serialised in any RDF serialisation).

They are orthogonal indeed; what I wrote doesn't contradict this.

"on top of that document's media type" means that all of the media types' rules apply
(in particular the syntax).

It does _not_ mean that a profile is coupled to a specific media type.

> We must be careful not to look at profiles/application profiles/generic profiles (to me those are synonyms *in this context*) as something that is only relevant for data in RDF

Certainly not.

> The question if this is a real use case is important, though, since it also affects the profile negotiation deliverable: Do we need to have support for negotiation of multiple profiles or not?

Yes, we most definitely should.

Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 21:16:49 UTC

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