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

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

From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 08:37:45 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-507998122-1562143064-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@rob-metalinkage are you arguing that media type profiles (well, considering that JSON-LD profiles are within one media type, i.e. they don't specify their own media type)? This would be interesting. I guess I could see this working, but it requires a definition of profile that would probably be too flexible for some people in the group. I mean, I had to retract my one unifying definiton because people didn't want a profile to be "based or not" on another profile, it had to be based on something. JSON-LD profile would bring the same degree of scope extension, if just some JSON-LD forms are not based on a data specification. E.g. asking for the "compacted" form of a DCAT JSON-LD file has nothing to do with DCAT.

As for data profiling, it's not specification, it's analysis of something that's given. I will really stand strongly behind this.

GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/976#issuecomment-507998122 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2019 08:37:47 UTC

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