Re: [dxwg] Profiles should contain constraint information

@nicholascar "If a profile is defined in a "guidance" form only, e.g. expressed as a PDF doc only, then requiring constraint information will mean it can't be expressed in this ontology."

To my mind, constraints do not have to be machine-actionable. The DCAT-AP includes cardinality and other constraints. To validate, a human would have to turn those stated constraints into some actionable code, but the constraints are still expressed in the AP. There is a plethora of metadata documentation in document form that is used (by humans) to create validation programs and "cross-walks" between metadata types. Although we should be moving into a more machine-actionable environment, our guidance document needs to include the current low-tech practices.

To whit, I see the guidance document having two threads:

1. The concept of profiles and the information they contain (including why the information is useful)
2. Some advice on practices that increase the utility and usability of profiles, like machine-readable vocabularies, presentation of validation schemas, etc.

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

Received on Friday, 18 May 2018 07:51:22 UTC