W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > June 2018

Re: [dxwg] Profile negotiation [RPFN]

From: kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:40:37 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-396614248-1528814436-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Yes, my serialization is your media type.

"It might or might not have its own identifier " - if there is no identifier, how will it be accessed/transmitted? 

It's fine to have a "work" identifier (although again I caution that one needs to think very hard about what that identifier identifies), but any resource on the web has an identifier for the resource, not just the work. This is why I recommend that this work vs. actual thing be thought through carefully, and the relationship between those be clear. I don't know DCAT terribly well but this seems to be a difference between dataset and distribution. Obviously, the response to content negotiation is some form of distribution (in DCAT terms). In the FRBR sense, the work is an abstract concept with no physical/digital presence, and it is only when it is manifested (distributed) is there a non-abstract thing. So as long as the URI for the dataset refers to an abstraction, that makes sense, but I'm not clear on what the non-abstraction consists of.

GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/74#issuecomment-396614248 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 14:40:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:04 UTC