Re: Profile definitions / DCAT update

Re lists and deliverables...

This is actually not a trivial issue - for each requirement there are
multiple possible ways to deliver - i.e. should it be promoted to an
extension of DCAT or is there an existing vocabulary we should re-use and
hence it should be in the guidelines.  In fact, there are probably
formalisms of DCAT profiles we can/should deliver, at the very least to
support with exemplars and experience the guidelines for how to profiles.

So I suggest the triage might be:

Look at each requirement and decide if a case can be made for all the extra
work of a DCAT extension,  and if not, can a top-level general profile be
identified - i.e. should we propose a DCAT profile for scientific data (and
then delegate it to either a keen subgroup to add as a deliverable, or
describe the potential scope in the guidleline deliverable and then park
the issue)?

Only generally applicable cases should make it into DCAT core. Maybe we
should create a register of possible abstract profiles, (which would be
refined for specific application domains) where external vocabularies we
decide we want to exploit are introduced - e.g. DCAT -PROV .  Note that
profiles describe conformant subsets, and are thus not disjoint, so
something can be both DCAT-Prov and DCAT-EU, so this is a matter of high
level functional requirements, not a binning/classification exercise.


On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 at 11:21 Rob Atkinson <> wrote:

> Re profiles discussion..
> As part of the work I am doing with the OGC developing a Linked Data view
> of a knowledge base of specifications, profiles and supporting artefacts I
> find the need to have a formal ontology to define profiles, and the nature
> of artefacts that support validation and implementation of these profiles
> (like SHACL documents, schematron, human readable documents, testing
> guidelines, unit tests etc. I have also been discussing activities with the
> Australian Government Linked Data working group, where a key concern is how
> profiles of ISO standards relate to Australian Standards and industry de
> jure and de facto standards, and the general desire to have formal
> ontologies to back up descriptions of how such things are linked.
> so, as part of the process of "define what we mean by profiles" I propose
> to submit a straw man OWL model and try to keep it in sync with the
> semantics of any text definitions, and propose this as an extra
> deliverable, which with OGC and at least one other we should be able to
> meet requirements for a rec track for this.
> Have put the OGC view (based on ISO concepts)
> Rob Atkinson.
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 at 09:30 Karen Coyle <> wrote:
>> As we all come out of our holiday haze, it is time to get ready for some
>> important work on DCAT 1.1 and application profiles. Here are two
>> suggestions of mine for immediate activity - please add any others that
>> you can think of, and we can discuss at our meeting on January 9.
>> 1) Hopefully the DCAT 1.1 work can begin with a review of the
>> requirements. As a "list" person, I'd probably want to create a list of
>> potential additions to DCAT and prioritize them in a way that helps the
>> editors make progress (e.g. easy/obvious, good but harder to define, may
>> not make it). Please do what *you* think will jump start that work.
>> 2) Before work can get underway on the application profiles deliverable,
>> we need to define what we mean by profiles and application profiles.
>> Ruben and I have made a start of a discussion [1] but we need more
>> voices. You don't have to provide your own definitions if you don't
>> want, but at least make comments.
>> Thanks, and we'll post an agenda in the next day or two.
>> [1]
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>

Received on Friday, 5 January 2018 00:32:31 UTC