- From: kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 23:50:48 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
This is all fine - for folks who are imbued with knowledge of DCAT datasets and distributions. I'm not sure how this plays beyond that environment. So much depends on who we see as the audience for the profile guidance and the profiles ontology. For example, someone with a "physical" profile document (pdf, txt, whatever) but who hasn't encountered DCAT dataset/distribution concepts may find it intuitive to consider that file to be a profile. If we go this abstract/distribution route then we must use the abstraction/distribution distinction in the guidance document. This may narrow the audience for that document and for profiles ontology, making it less likely to be accepted more widely. With my DCMI hat on, I don't see this as desirable. I do see a possibility to create a profile guidance that is parallel to DCAT, and I also see a possibility to create a general definition of profiles that is not directly related to DCAT. However, I think these are two different efforts, and we will need to decide which we will deliver. -- GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/486#issuecomment-435720474 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2018 23:50:49 UTC