RE: Profiles in Linked Data

On Thursday, May 07, 2015 4:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 
> On 5/7/15 5:08 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> 
> What behavior characteristics are being signaled by the "profile" relation
> embedded in HTTP response metadata?  Here's what I suspect you are
> implying:
> 
> 
> Request:
> GET /resource/Linked_data HTTP 1.1
> Accept: text/turtle
> Link: <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData#this>; rel="profile"
> Response
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Content-Type: text/turtle
> Vary: Accept, Link
> Link: <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData#this>; rel=profile
> 
> Implies:
> 
> The document content retrieved is in RDF-Turtle form, and by way of "profile"
> relation a user agent should assume that it adheres to the principles outlined by
> the concept identified by <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData#this> .

Term clarification: My notion of profile is what the Dublin Core community calls an Application Profile [1], in this particular case it's a description telling a consumer what (RDF) classes and properties are used to describe a resource [2], similar to the RDF data shapes [3]. I'm not sure the linked data principles count as such a profile.

> 
> Bearing in mind:
> 
> <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData#this>
> is schema:about of <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData> .
> 
> OR (in purer Turtle):
> 
> <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData>
> schema:about <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData#this> .

I agree with the statements but cannot quite follow what you want to tell me.
 
> I am walking through this piecemeal, because I've circled this wagon a few
> times in other quarters (typically in forums such as LDP [most recent
> occurrence]) [1].
> 
> CON:
> Basically, if what I've outlined is accurate, we've ended up adding a signal (via
> HTTP request and response metadata) to indicate what's implicit re., AWWW
> (Architecture of the World Wide Web) i.e., that HTTP URIs are Name that
> resolve to descriptions of what they denote (i.e., an HTTP URI has a denotation
> and connotation duality that enables them function as Terms).
> 
> PRO:
> Anyway, countering myself [as I type], I've also realized that when the Content-
> Type is one of those associated with the RDF Language, we could look to this
> "profile" relation as a mechanism for a user agent to signal that the RDF
> Language based content requested has to conform to the principles associated
> with the concept identified by
> <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData#this>. And likewise, a server can
> return content also using "profile" to indicate that said RDF content is in RDF-
> Turtle form, and conforms to the principles associated with the concept
> identified by <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData#this>.

Well, no. This is not what I try to achieve. It's really about negotiating application profiles/data shapes. 

[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/profile-guidelines/

[2] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php?title=RDF-Application-Profiles

[3] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page


Best,

Lars

Received on Thursday, 7 May 2015 15:23:17 UTC