- From: Andrea Perego via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:07:22 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@kcoyle said: > 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. It is true that this information is missing in PROF but, to my understanding, the reason is that this is a programmatic decision related to the scope of PROF, which focusses on describing the profile context, also in view of profile-based conneg. But I think the issue here relates also to vocabularies which are overlapping with and complementary to PROF. However we define a profile in PROF, in ADMS a profile will be an `adms:Asset` and a resource descriptor will be an `adms:AssetDistribution` (which are subclasses of `dcat:Dataset` and `dcat:Distribution`, respectively). And a profile which is an RDF vocabulary or an OWL ontology will be a `voaf:Vocabulary` in VOAF. People have been using both VOAF and ADMS for describing profiles for some time now (for discovery and statistical analysis), so I think it is important we clarify inside the WG which is the real difference (if any) between what we mean to model in PROF with respect to profiles, and DCAT / ADMS / VOAF. I am personally still a bit confused, and I still find hard to see how a profile cannot be also a `dcat:Dataset` and a resource descriptor a `dcat:Distribution`. They are of course also other things, and PROF is meant to describe exactly these aspects, in my understanding. -- GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/529#issuecomment-457966958 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 28 January 2019 00:07:23 UTC