Re: Outcome of profile definition discussion

Note:

This definition is obviously distinct from that of an encoding, hence
negotiation over profiles is distinct from negotiation over MIME-types.
There should be no confusion.

This covers requirements that the definition support general profiles data
may conform to, DCAT profiles (DCAT resources being data) and
content-negotiation using profile identifiers. It is expect that profile
negotiation will require identifiers to be IRIs, and DCAT guidance should
recommend this - and possibly DCAT can enforce this using an
owl:ObjectProperty to bind profiles to things.

DCAT profiles may be a further refinement of this more general definition,
for example requiring that constraints are expressed specifically against
RDF properties, and that IRIs identifying such profiles must resolve to a
particular form of resource - such as instances of a RDF model describing
the profile and any documents (PDF, SHACL) that describe the set of
constraints.




On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 at 13:23 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> All,
>
> After considerable discussion, both in email and during the meeting, the
> group approved the following definition for profiles:
>
> "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. "[1]
>
> In reading over the email thread it occurs to me that we did not discuss
> the term "vocabularies" - we may wish to revisit that.
>
> The requirement that the definition be contrasted to mime types was seen
> as being specific to content negotiation and therefore would not be part
> of a single definition of profile that would be appropriate for both the
> Guidance deliverable and the Content Negotiation deliverable. This could
> be added to the Content Negotiation document in its definition section,
> if desired.
>
> This decision does not preclude further discussion if needed, but
> hopefully provides a stake in the ground for our work.
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2018/02/06-dxwg-minutes
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
>
>