Re: [dxwg] DCAT: Inconsistent use of "profile" / "application profile" (#937)

@andrea-perego  wrote:
> As far as I know, we actually mean the same thing,
> but anyway we have to address this issue by
> 1. be consistent in how we use these two notions
> 2. pointing to the actual definitions of "profile" and/or "application profile" we are using

I agree "DCAT application profile" and "DCAT profile" are used interchangeably,  we have used mainly "DCAT application profile". 
We have also defined the term "DCAT profile" in the conformance section, as

> A DCAT profile is a specification for a data catalog that adds additional constraints to DCAT. A data catalog that conforms to the profile also conforms to DCAT. Additional constraints in a profile MAY include:
>- Cardinality constraints, including a minimum set of required metadata fields
>- Sub-classes and sub-properties of the standard DCAT classes and properties
>- Classes and properties for additional metadata fields not covered in DCAT
>- Controlled vocabularies or URI sets as acceptable values for properties
>- Requirements for specific access mechanisms (RDF syntaxes, protocols) to the catalog's RDF description

I have found some occurrences of  "profile" where we generically refer to profiles that are not necessarily of DCAT. However, I do not think this is a problem if we make clear that "DCAT application profile" and "DCAT profile" are not distinct in the document.

I propose to fix the issue  with one of the following options
A- replace "DCAT Application Profile" with "DCAT profile";
B- reformulate the definition above with  "A DCAT profile (aka DCAT Application Profile) is a specification ... "; 
C- do both A and B.

If we agree on one of the above options, I can take care of submitting a PR.

GitHub Notification of comment by riccardoAlbertoni
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2019 15:19:19 UTC