RE: Definitions page for Profiles

Ø  profiles are 'conforming subsets' of specifications

or most often, combinations of conforming subsets of specifications.

Pushing this definition too hard in the RDF environment might not be helpful, however. Any RDF property that does not have a defined range has the Ur-set (rdfs:Resource or owl:Thing) as its range by implication. So it can quite correctly be argued that any specified range taken from any vocabulary is a restriction of this.

From: Rob Atkinson []
Sent: Wednesday, 10 January, 2018 08:35
Subject: Re: Definitions page for Profiles

Because classes and properties are probably formalised in a specific way, with a "standalone" artefact, a profile that binds this artefact to a given base specification/profile as a constraint is still a profile.

The key requirement is that profiles are 'conforming subsets' of specifications, (and are specifications themselves)

(IMHO this is a strong reason to have a strong profile model defined - conformance for a profile would be that it _can_ be described in such a formalism - profiles may still exist that are only normatively described in PDF )


On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 at 08:02 Karen Coyle <<>> wrote:
Antoine, I don't know exactly why that was the decision, although there
is, in my mind, a practical question of what properties are needed to
define new terms, and if those fit with the properties of a profile.
Possibly there are also issues of IRI naming and discovery.


On 1/9/18 12:42 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Karen,
> You're probably going to hate me for this reaction, especially
> considering the time we've worked together on APs in the DC community...
> But is there a very strong reason to say that something wouldn't be a
> profile because it originates classes and properties?
> To me what was core was the notion of re-using other vocabularies/model
> (it would be much harder to define as a profile something that *only*
> originates classes and properties), but it wasn't obvious that it would
> forbid minting own classes and properties when appropriate.
> So if it makes things easier and this rule of thumb can be softened (if
> it does exist), perhaps we could propose it to the DC community?
> Antoine
> On 18/12/17 15:31, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Andrea, in answer to #2, by the Dublin Core definition, DCAT itself
>> would not be a profile because it originates classes and properties. DC
>> profiles reuse but do not create vocabulary elements. A DC profile is
>> always based on vocabularies defined (preferably in a standard way)
>> elsewhere.
>> That said, presumably you could create a DCAT profile that is exactly
>> all of the classes and properties that are included in DCAT. If profiles
>> include information such as cardinality, value pick lists, etc., then
>> such a profile would provide information not included in the DCAT
>> ontology.
>> kc
>> On 12/18/17 5:05 AM,<> wrote:
>>> Dear Karen, dear Ruben,
>>> Thanks for initiating this page.
>>> A couple of comments / questions:
>>> 1. I think it may be worth including an explicit reference to the
>>> definition of "profile" from RFC 6906 ("The 'profile' Link Relation
>>> Type") [1]. @Ruben, if I'm not mistaken your definitions are
>>> partially based on it.
>>> 2. Looking at the wiki page, it is unclear whether DCAT itself (and
>>> any metadata schema, vocabulary, etc.) is considered or not a "profile".
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andrea
>>> ----
>>> [1]

>>> ----
>>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>>> European Commission DG JRC
>>> Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
>>> Unit B6 - Digital Economy
>>> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy

>>> ----
>>> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
>>> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
>>> position of the European Commission.
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Karen Coyle [<>]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 5:11 PM
>>>> To:<>
>>>> Subject: Definitions page for Profiles
>>>> Ruben and I have done the first set of definitions on the Profiles
>>>> Context page [1]. You should add your own definitions and also comment
>>>> on those that are there. This is a brainstorming exercise so please
>>>> toss
>>>> out your thoughts, respond to definitions and comments, and contribute
>>>> to this.
>>>> kc
>>>> [1]

>>>> --
>>>> Karen Coyle

>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600<tel:+1%20510-984-3600>

Karen Coyle<>

m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600<tel:+1%20510-984-3600>

Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2018 03:37:22 UTC