Do we really need a notion of profile "conformance"?

An XML, SHACL, or ShEx processor can test whether some
data conforms to an XML schema or to a SHACL or ShEx
document.

However, I see no requirement simply to assert (for
example, in metadata) that an XML schema, SHACL or ShEx
document -- not to mention the PDF of an application
profile -- "conforms to" some base specification.  The
XML schema, SHACL or ShEx document, or even the PDF of an
application profile usually cite their own sources --
e.g., the namespaces used -- explicitly enough.

In the absence of an algorithmic conformance test, simply
asserting conformance only really states intent -- for
example, that something conforms to the text of the
two-page EU Regulation at
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/1312/oj) as per
Section 12.2.1 of [3].  The result of an algorithmic
conformance test can be recorded in metadata, though
since most specifications are mutable, at least in
principle, such an assertion can only reliably be seen as
the result of a given test against a version of a
document at a given time.

For CONNEG, the generic definition of "profile" provided
by Svensson and Verborgh -- "a document that expresses
the structural and/or semantic constraints of other
documents" [1] -- seems good enough if the typical use
case will be to point to an application profile such as
DCAT. The IETF draft reinforces this point by citing the
definition of "application profile" from Heery and Patel
2000.

To conclude:

* For CONNEG, I see no need to define "profile" any more
  precisely than Svensson and Verborgh [1].

* As the section on DCAT conformance says very clearly, 
  DCAT APs are "application profiles" in the Dublin Core
  sense: "The notion of profile used in this document
  denotes metadata specifications that the Dublin Core
  community would call application profiles" [2].
  
I see no compelling need to harmonize the definition of
"profile" between CONNEG and DCAT, and for the purposes
of CONNEG and DCAT, I see no need for a more elaborate or
generalized theory of profiles.  A WG Note on Guidance
summarizing existing practice would be useful though I do
not see it as being on the critical path to finalizing
CONNEG and DCAT.

Tom

[1] https://profilenegotiation.github.io/I-D-Accept--Schema/I-D-accept-schema
[2] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#conformance
[3] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#quality-conformance-statement

-- 
Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>

Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2019 07:47:12 UTC