Re: Profile definitions / DCAT update

On 1/4/18 5:49 PM, wrote:
> I tend to agree. 
> Our job is to supply the tools. 
> The communities will define their profiles. 
> These might be done as community activities under W3C auspices, but most will likely not. 

In fact, our charter says:

2.2 Out of Scope
The Dataset Exchange Working Group will not create application profiles
or metadata standards that only apply to very specific domains (such as
particle physics, accountancy, oncology etc.)


> Simon  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Annette Greiner [] 
> Sent: Friday, 5 January, 2018 12:00
> To:
> Subject: Re: Profile definitions / DCAT update
> I don't think we are supposed to be proposing specific profiles. My understanding is that we are providing guidance as to how others can propose their own. In any case, making a single profile for all scientific data would be about as easy as (in homage to Phil) boiling the ocean. But I do want to ensure that profiles are something that scientific communities can use (and define for themselves).
> -Annette
> On 1/4/18 4:31 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>>  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)?
> --
> Annette Greiner
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Friday, 5 January 2018 16:30:27 UTC