W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > July 2019

Re: [dxwg] Two things that our "profiles" are not (#976)

From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 23:26:31 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-507880564-1562109990-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
media type profiles - are a just a type of profile that profiles one specific aspect of a dataset - this is the general pattern that all communities may use a narrower concept of profiling within their domain without creating a broader definition that we must all bow down to..

we still need one broad enough to handle all the use cases of describing what specifications data conforms to, and how these specifications relate to each other in terms of compatibility (e.g DCAT-AP specialisation hierarchies)

a profile is a specification that has a profile role with respect to another specification. Now we need to nail what that role means functionally, and make the simplest and broadest definition we can.

I'm not sure an arbitrary distinction here is a helpful - I agree with Karen's earlier comment "We do, however, want to include profiles that are not written as actionable code".  Profiling is a specification activity - so data conforms to a specification which may be profile which relates to one or more specifications - i.e. the relationship between specifications entails further statements about what the data conforms to.  It doesnt seem to make sense to split this up as there is a single functional intent, and we really dont care too much about the form of the specifications themselves.

GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/976#issuecomment-507880564 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2019 23:26:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:18 UTC