- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 07:52:37 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@kcoyle I don't understand. I see no problem with people calling their document a 'profile'. A lot of people will not be interested to formally describe their profile in LD terms, so they have no need to even look at the Profile Ontology. They can even call each of the eight files at https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/release/dcat-ap-v11, 'the profile'. But: as soon as they want their profile to play in the LD world, they will read the specification of the Profile Ontology and understand what the ProfOnt classes mean and how to describe their physical artefacts. They may still call their document colloquially 'the profile', but they'll know that their document is not the `prof:Profile`. The same situation occurs with someone who has a file with data. If that person wasn't familiar with DCAT, he or she may find it intuitive to call that file a 'dataset', and that's fine. It is just that for the description of the file with DCAT, that person would need to read the specification of DCAT and then understand that the file is not the 'dcat:Dataset'. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/486#issuecomment-435783108 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 5 November 2018 07:52:38 UTC