RE: Requirements for profiles

Hi Ruben,

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10:16 PM, Ruben Verborgh [mailto:Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be] wrote:

> > 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.

No it doesn't but I think we should choose the language so that this is clear also to people who are not so deep into the topic as we are...

> "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.

Yes, and I think we must choose our language to make that absolutely clear.

Suggested language:
[[
... in addition to any rules -- particularly syntactical ones -- mandated by the media type used to serialise the information content.
Care must be taken that the semantics and constraints defined in the profile do not contradict those defined by the 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.

+1

Best,

Lars

Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2017 08:26:13 UTC