- From: kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:05:08 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I'd rather think of the files/resources of a prof:Profile as being "members" (as in members of a set) rather than "parts". As was said in an earlier issue, with profiles as defined in the ontology there is no "whole" - nothing indicates that a profile is defined as having specific parts, nor is there any measure of completeness. But mostly there is no whole to be a part of, and there is nothing defining relationships between the members; some of may be entirely stand-alone and un-related to other members.
To my thinking the primary way in which profiles differ from DCAT datasets is that there is no descriptive metadata for the profile: no title, no creator, no date, no topic, no standards used, etc, nor for the resource. Thus a profile is not a dataset in the DCAT sense of that term (or in any other sense that I know), only a class (IRI) with a minimum human-semantic component and very little in terms of RDF semantics (domains, ranges, sub-classes). I would also say that the prof:Profile is not analogous to a dcat:Catalog ("A curated collection of metadata about datasets and data services") - although it is possibly a "curated collection" it is NOT a collection of metadata, but at best a collection of files or resources. Thus a *set* of resources that are brought together by someone as belonging to a particular profile. It's all pretty vague, whereas DCAT catalogs and datasets are much more specific.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/529#issuecomment-457958579 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2019 22:05:10 UTC