- From: Andrea Perego via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 21:05:53 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@larsgsvensson said: > I also agree with @aisaac that we should be technology-neutral. And I also would point out that (to me) the URI identifies the profile as a `resource` that can have many `representations`. With that terminology there is no `profile document` since any document will be (only) a `representation` of the profile `resource`. (I. e. let's use the web architecture terminology) Well, we have the example of DCAT (and ADMS), where we have a resource (`dcat:Dataset` / `adms:Asset`) and its representations (via `dcat:Distribution` / `adms:AssetDistribution`). Analogously, the profile document will correspond to profile metadata (title, description, publisher) and whereas profile representations will correspond to the human- and/or machine-readable definitions of the profile (the list of re-used classes and properties, and their constraints). -- GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/242#issuecomment-394499316 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 4 June 2018 21:05:54 UTC