- From: Riccardo Albertoni via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 15:19:18 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@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 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/937#issuecomment-494436750 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2019 15:19:19 UTC