Re: [dxwg] Definition of "Schema" (as opposed to profile)

I would support @aisaac's proposal for class names, as it is simpler and more intuitive. I must also say that, after looking closely at the profiledesc vocabulary and the examples included in the different discussion threads, I keep on seeing strong analogies with DCAT (in particular, `dcat:Dataset` and `dcat:Distribution`). Based on that, I wonder whether we can simply call the two main classes `prof:Profile` and `prof:ProfileDistribution`.

About the distinction between human- and machine-readable profile definitions, I wonder whether there's really the need to make it explicit (and define specific subclasses), or it can rather be inferred by the format or the "standard" (XML Schema, SHACL, etc.) the profile definition conforms to. 

Finally, about semantic equivalence of profile definitions: I totally agree this is not a requirement. 

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

Received on Friday, 18 May 2018 22:57:03 UTC