Back to Makx's question "I do not understand why we can't just use the existing DCAT model of Dataset (for the profile) and Distribution": I've just set up a profileDesc description of a dummy DC Application Profile for testing: [CSIRO ePublish Dublin Core Application Profile](http://github.com/CSIRO-enviro-informatics/csiro-epub-dcap). I've modelled the thing overall as a `Dataset` (given not by any RDF properties but just by the use of a URI with /dataset/ in it) and it's not great fun. I have the various profileDesc *Implementation Resource Descriptors* (the *Guidance* and *FullConstraint* objects in RDF, PDF, etc.) serving useful functions (allowing for multiple constraint representation and descriptive docs about the profile) but I don't see how any of this is easily mappable to a DCAT-like things such as `Dataset` & `Distribution` in any useful way. I can see how there *may* be upper, abstract mappings possible but so what? Do we really need profiling artifacts to be slaved to even abstract versions of DCAT? Sure, one can abstract right up to `owl:Thing` and find mappings but, again, so what? Can we perhaps concentrate on representing existing practice of profiling, with a nod to future practice, as *profiling*, not cataloguing, before we really pound the profiling/cataloguing crosswalks further? Else we might be hampering profile representation due to DCAT's embedded ways of operating. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/279#issuecomment-418012884 using your GitHub accountReceived on Monday, 3 September 2018 06:27:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:28:24 UTC