Re: [dxwg] Profiles may be written in or may link to a document or schema in a validation language (ShEx, SHACL, XMLschema). [ID41] (5.41)

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]( 

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 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 3 September 2018 06:27:51 UTC