Re: [dxwg] Proposal for the structure of the "Guidance for Application Profiles" document

@larsgsvensson dixit:

> It seems that your "profile desciption" is equivalent to my "profile" and that your "profile definition" is equivalent to my "schema". Does that make sense?

Yes, but I'm not sure we are all using the notion of "schema" with the same meaning (I'm coming back to this in a moment).

My comment was triggered by the impression that the "Profile description" section is just about what I called "profile description" [sic!]. So, maybe an option could be to have an overall section "Profiles", starting by saying that a profile consists of a description and a definition, and then devoting 2 subsections to them. 

About the notion of "schema", I am not very comfortable with it for a number of reasons. We said that a profile can be defined just with a human-targeted document, whereas "schema" usually reminds of something machine-actionable. Moreover, "schema" is so widely used that using it with a more specific meaning (in the scope of profiles) may lead to confusion. Finally, it may be worth taking into account that some communities use the expression "application schema" exactly in the sense of application profile - see, e.g., [the GML case]( (which, BTW, we can include as an example of non-RDF-centric approach to application profiles) - quoting:

> Geography Markup Language (GML) provides the basis for domain- or community-specific "application schemas", which in turn support data interoperability within a community of interest. Application schemas are normally designed using ISO 19103 (Geographic information -- Conceptual schema language) [1] conformant UML, and then the GML Application created by following the rules given in Annex E of ISO 19136.

I think we need to have a term to denote the artifact that defines a profile (irrespective of whether it is machine-actionable or not). If we do have the need of denoting the subset of "profile definitions" which are machine-actionable and we want to use "schema", then I suggest we always qualify it as "profile schema", to make it clear the scope of it (which is actually what is usually done - e.g., relational schema, XML schema, RDF schema).

GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2018 21:21:35 UTC