Re: Agenda February 6

IRI identification is an implementation concern - and can be enforced for
DCAT as an implementation by modelling it as an object property (and best
practice that IRIs should be stable). Orthoganility with MIME types is
agreed, but doesnt affect the other concerns that also need to be
addresses. If you like we could add extra information such as "In the
context of information resources, profiles constrain information content,
and are thus distinct from, and additional to, other facets such as
language and MIME-type encodings."

anyway - I've had my attempt to come up with something accurate against the
underlying information requirements - its up to the broader team. I'll
provide concrete counter examples only if I think a definition is broken.
Regardless, I think we do need to compare our definition to other related
defiintions, and working from the ISO definintion makes that process
simple.

rob







On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 at 11:28 Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:

> Hi Rob, all,
>
> > I still don't see why the ISO definition used is fundamentally
> inconsistent
>
> I think that's the wrong question.
>
> A more important question is whether the definition is useful for our
> purposes.
> And I don't think it is.
> One of the reasons being that it doesn't capture the most important things
> we agree on:
> profiles are identified by IRIs, and are a set constraints that apply to
> documents
> in addition to those of its media type.
>
> > how about:
> >
> > "A named set of constraints on one or more identified base
> specifications, including the identification of any implementing subclasses
> of datatypes, semantic interpretations, vocabularies, options and
> parameters of those base specifications necessary to accomplish a
> particular function. This definitions allows for the set of constraints may
> be empty, and specifications may be profiles themselves, so that all
> statements about conformance to a specification may be made using the
> single concept of a profile"
> >
> > too wordy perhaps, but has the explicit words we want and spells out the
> logic somewhat redundantly, but more accessibly.
>
> To be honest, I don't even understand that wording.
>
> Best,
>
> Ruben