Re: [dxwg] Profile negotiation [RPFN]

It feels to me that in some of the discussion there is confounding of profiles and serializations. That's something we need to be careful about - profiles and serializations are orthogonal.

The example:

for the same reason that we link to
instead of

makes we wonder if we haven't ventured into FRBR Work territory.[1] (I recall some mention of DCAT dataset being at the FRBR work level.) If anyone wants to do that, then the work and the distributions and the profiles all will have URIs, otherwise they have no existence in the web sense. Whether we prefer to use the work URI in a query doesn't mean that the distributions and profiles do not have a URI - if they are on the web, they have a URI. It also seems that they will almost surely have a profile-based web identifier when they are the response to a content negotiation action. (Just as the result of each SPARQL query has a web identifier, albeit temporary in scope.) When one asks for "" in json, one presumably gets "". When one asks for "" as defined by ProfileX, then there needs to be a unique identifier for that data in that profile. Is defining this part of the content negotiation deliverable?

[1] The "undifferentiated work URI" is a hairy thing. If it is to be defined as part of content negotiation I urge caution. I need to add that I am one of the staunchest FRBR skeptics, and wrote an entire [book]( on why I feel that way. All I can say is "there be dragons" so think it through very carefully.

GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 11 June 2018 23:03:48 UTC